Case 2402365/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Griffiths v Olympic Scaffold & Tower Hire Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402365/2019
- Decision date
- 31 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Griffiths
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr I Griffiths was unfairly dismissed by Olympic Scaffold & Tower Hire Ltd. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing on 8 July 2019, and the written judgment was sent to the parties on 31 July 2019.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £258 and a compensatory award of £86. It assessed compensation on the basis that, had the respondent acted fairly, the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed on 19 February 2019.
The tribunal reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 80% to reflect the claimant’s contributory conduct. No separate discrimination, whistleblowing, redundancy, wage, or contract claim is recorded in the judgment, and no further remedy elements are identified beyond the two awards and the statutory interest notice.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It awarded a basic award of £258 and a compensatory award of £86. The tribunal assessed compensation on the basis that, had the respondent acted fairly, the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed on 19 February 2019, and reduced both awards by 80% to reflect the claimant’s contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | £344 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £344
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £258
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £86
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.