Case 2401736/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D C Hulme v Enviroplas Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401736/2020
- Decision date
- 20 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Serr Representation
- Venue
- Manchester via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D C Hulme
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr D C Hulme's claim of unfair dismissal succeeded against Enviroplas Ltd. It also found that his dismissal was wrongful. The hearing took place at Manchester via CVP on 10 November 2020 before Employment Judge Serr, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 20 November 2020.
On liability and remedy, the tribunal held that Mr Hulme had contributed to his own dismissal and made a 25% deduction for contributory fault under s.122 and s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996. It further found that, even if a fair procedure had been adopted, he would have been fairly dismissed within four weeks of his actual dismissal.
The tribunal therefore limited any compensatory award to that four-week period. It also recorded that the claimant was entitled to notice pay for the wrongful dismissal, but the amount was not determined in this judgment.
A remedies hearing was listed for 8 January 2021 with a two-hour estimate.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded. It held that the claimant had contributed to his own dismissal and applied a 25% deduction for contributory fault under s.122 and s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that, even with a fair procedure, he would have been fairly dismissed within four weeks of the actual dismissal, so any compensatory award would be limited to that period. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was wrongful and held that the claimant was entitled to notice pay. The amount of notice pay was left to be determined at a remedies hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.122 and s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.