Case 2402546/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Nelson v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402546/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Panel members
- Mr AG Barker, Mr S Husain
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Nelson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that Mr M Nelson was unfairly dismissed by Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. It said that, applying Polkey, there was a 50% chance he would have been fairly dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed.
The age discrimination claim failed. The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of age, and it therefore dismissed that claim.
The tribunal also upheld the unlawful deductions from wages claim. It found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions when it failed to take account of the claimant's car allowance in calculating his remuneration for payment in lieu of accrued but outstanding annual leave. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. It also applied the Polkey principle and found there was a 50% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed had a fair procedure been followed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not treated less favourably because of age, so the age discrimination claim did not succeed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages because the respondent did not take account of the claimant's car allowance when calculating payment in lieu of accrued but outstanding annual leave. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey
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.