Case 2407121/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Charlton v Bryn Labour Club — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407121/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Charlton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Charlton's claim of unfair dismissal under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. Employment Judge Howard, sitting alone at Manchester on 28 and 29 March 2023, found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by Bryn Labour Club.
The tribunal found that the claimant contributed to her dismissal through culpable conduct. It therefore reduced the basic and any compensatory award by 75% for contributory conduct. It also found that the Polkey provisions applied, and reduced any compensatory award by a further 50% to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,995.79. The written notice also stated that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the award remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, which was 6 April 2023, with interest calculated at 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. It applied a 75% reduction for contributory conduct to the basic and any compensatory award, and a further 50% Polkey reduction to any compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £1,996 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,996
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- 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.