Case 2408160/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Haspell v Rowleys of Northwich Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408160/2021
- Decision date
- 30 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Haspell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr P Haspell was unfairly dismissed by Rowleys of Northwich Ltd. The judgment records that the respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £1,836.00 and a compensatory award of £762.44.
The basic award was reduced by 75% on the basis that it was just and equitable to do so because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal. The compensatory award was assessed on the footing that, had the respondent acted fairly, the claimant would have been suspended on full pay until 6 April 2021 and would inevitably have been dismissed on that date.
In calculating compensation, the tribunal found there was a 25% chance that the dismissal would have been with notice and a corresponding 75% chance that it would have been without notice. It also found that it was not just and equitable to make any further reduction to the compensatory award for contributory conduct. The tribunal was satisfied that the award was not subject to recoupment of welfare benefits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It awarded a basic award of £1,836.00 and a compensatory award of £762.44. The basic award was reduced by 75% as just and equitable because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal. | Upheld | — | £2,598 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,598
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,836
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £762
- 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.