Case 2414715/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Noone (Deceased) v Zep (UK) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414715/2019
- Decision date
- 13 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Noone (Deceased)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr T Noone was unfairly dismissed by Zep (UK) Ltd. It found the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The reasons recorded in the judgment also state that Polkey applied to this case to the extent of 80%.
The tribunal further found that the claimant contributed to his own dismissal by culpable and blameworthy conduct to the extent of 100%. No monetary award is set out in the extracted judgment text provided.
The separate breach of contract claim was not well-founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. Polkey applied to the extent of 80%, and the claimant was found to have contributed to his own dismissal by culpable and blameworthy conduct to the extent of 100%. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was found not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.