Case 2408453/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Oliver v Prahi Hotel Collection Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408453/2021
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Oliver
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge McCarthy, found that Mr D Oliver's complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and that he had been unfairly dismissed by Prahi Hotel Collection Limited. The written judgment records that the decision was given orally at the hearing, with no written reasons issued unless separately requested.
Although liability for unfair dismissal was upheld, the tribunal made no basic or compensatory award. It applied a 100% reduction to the compensatory award under the principles in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd because the dismissal would have occurred in any event, and it also reduced both the basic award and any compensatory award by 100% because the claimant contributed to his dismissal through culpable conduct. The effect recorded in the judgment was that no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint well founded and held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, but made no basic or compensatory award after applying a 100% Polkey reduction and a 100% reduction for culpable conduct. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd 1988 ICR 142 HL
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.