Case 2404676/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Demuth v Done Bros T/a BetFred — 2020
- Case reference
- 2404676/2019
- Decision date
- 3 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs I fox, Ms L Wilkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. It also recorded that a 90% Polkey reduction would apply to the remedy. The extracted judgment does not give further detail on the factual or legal reasoning for the unfair dismissal finding beyond the outcome and the reduction applied.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for direct age discrimination. The judgment states only that the claim did not succeed, without setting out additional findings in the extracted text.
The claimant was awarded a net sum of £3,761.88. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not received any benefits during his period of employment, so no recoupment issues arose.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal unanimously found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. It stated that a 90% Polkey reduction would apply. The extracted judgment does not set out a detailed reasoning narrative for the dismissal finding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment records that the claim for direct age discrimination did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,762
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey reduction
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.