Case 2401844/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Fee v Euro Garages Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401844/2022
- Decision date
- 19 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Fee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Manchester on 17 and 18 January 2023, Employment Judge Phil Allen, sitting alone, held that Mr G Fee had been unfairly dismissed by Euro Garages Ltd. The tribunal also found that he had not contributed to his dismissal so as to justify any reduction under sections 122(2) or 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On remedy, the tribunal applied the Polkey principles and reduced the compensatory award by 40% to reflect the chance that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event. It also found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures and uplifted the award by 10% under section 207A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The extracted judgment text records these adjustments but does not state the underlying monetary figures or any final total.
The tribunal further held that Euro Garages Ltd breached the claimant's contract of employment by not giving notice or paying him in lieu of notice, and awarded damages equivalent to three months' notice. The unauthorised deduction claim concerning annual leave was dismissed. The claim for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal was dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. It held that the claimant did not contribute to his dismissal so that either the basic award or compensatory award should be reduced under sections 122(2) or 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but it applied a 40% Polkey reduction and a 10% uplift for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS code. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent breached the contract of employment by not giving notice or paying in lieu of notice and awarded damages equivalent to three months' notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal rejected the claim that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to annual leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Polkey
- section 122(2) ERA 1996
- section 123(6) ERA 1996
- section 207A(2) TULRCA 1992
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.
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.