Case 2409579/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Hand (Counsel) For the v Mr T Fuller (Chartered Legal Executive) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2409579/2020
- Decision date
- 14 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wyeth Appearances
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Hand (Counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr J Szehofner was unfairly dismissed by Barnett Transport Ltd. It also found that, had he not been unfairly dismissed, there was an 80 per cent chance he would have been dismissed fairly in any event, and said that this Polkey reduction should be reflected in any compensatory award. The tribunal further found that the respondent had been in breach of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures and that it was just and equitable to apply a 5 per cent uplift to the compensatory award element of damages.
The tribunal also held that there should be an 85 per cent reduction for contributory conduct applied to both the basic and compensatory awards. On the separate contractual claim, it found that the claimant was not dismissed in breach of contract and the wrongful dismissal claim failed.
No monetary award was made in this decision. By agreement with the parties, the matter was listed for a one-day remedy hearing by CVP on 25 April 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only. The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed, but remedy was listed for a later hearing by agreement. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed in breach of contract and the wrongful dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Polkey reduction
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- contributory conduct 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.