Case 2415089/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Curran v Doosan Babcock Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415089/2019
- Decision date
- 24 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Curran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr R Curran's unfair dismissal claim under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded, and that he was unfairly dismissed. It also found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal through culpable conduct, and directed that this be reflected in an 80% reduction to the basic award and to any compensatory award.
The tribunal applied the Polkey provisions and directed a further 80% reduction to any compensatory award to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event. The breach of contract claim, described as a claim for unpaid notice of termination of employment, failed and was dismissed.
No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment. The matter was listed for a hearing to determine remedy on 13 January 2022 at Manchester Employment Tribunal, with directions for schedules of loss, evidence, and a remedy bundle.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records an 80% contributory conduct reduction to the basic and any compensatory award, and an 80% Polkey reduction to any compensatory award; remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a breach of contract claim for unpaid notice of termination of employment, and dismisses it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- S95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- S98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey provisions
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.