Case 2415259/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Quigley v Tangerine Holdings — 2020
- Case reference
- 2415259/2019
- Decision date
- 27 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Quigley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr M Quigley's claim for unfair dismissal against Tangerine Holdings was well-founded and succeeded. The judgment records no other claims. The claim was decided by Employment Judge Ross sitting alone at Manchester by CVP, with reasons given orally and later recorded in writing.
In remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,937.50 and a compensatory award of £4,021.17. The compensatory award had been reduced by 20% by reason of the Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited principle. The total sum payable was therefore £7,958.67.
The judgment also states that the Recoupment Regulations 1996 do not apply to the award. No separate award for injury to feelings or interest is set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and reduced the compensatory award by 20% applying Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited. | Upheld | — | £7,959 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,959
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,938
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,021
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.