Case 2416662/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs C Anderson v Lancashire County Council — 2021

Case reference: 2416662/2019
Decision date: 24 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Peck

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs C Anderson

Respondent

Lancashire County Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unauthorised deduction from wages claim about non-payment for 86 banked hours. It also dismissed the claim for financial loss said to be attributable to delay in reimbursing her for her long-service award.

By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £61.20 gross in relation to the claimant's breach of contract claim concerning VAT payable on her long-service award.

The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the respondent did not follow an overall fair procedure. It also found that a fair procedure would have made no difference to the outcome, so any compensatory award was reduced by 100% to nil under Polkey. The tribunal found the dismissal was contributed to by the claimant's conduct and reduced the basic award by 75%, producing a total award of £1,889.11.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the respondent did not follow an overall fair procedure. The compensatory award was reduced by 100% to nil under Polkey and the basic award was reduced by 75% for contributory conduct.	Upheld	—	£1,889
Unlawful deduction from wages	The unauthorised deduction from wages claim concerned non-payment for 86 banked hours and was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £61.20 gross in relation to VAT payable on her long-service award.	Settled	—	£61
Other	The claim for financial loss attributable to the respondent's delay in reimbursing the claimant for her long-service award was dismissed; the precise legal classification is not clear from the judgment extract.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,889; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £1,889; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £0; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.