Case 2417184/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Barker v Pinnacle Living Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 2417184/2018
Decision date: 7 May 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Sharkett
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Barker

Respondent

Pinnacle Living Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Sharkett, sitting alone in Manchester on 10 April 2019, upheld Mr D Barker's unfair dismissal claim against Pinnacle Living Ltd. The tribunal applied the Polkey principles and found that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed, so the dismissal was treated as 100% Polkey and the award was limited to two weeks' loss of pay for the period the claimant would otherwise have remained employed.

The tribunal also made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a section 1 written statement of terms and conditions of employment. It recorded that no basic award was payable because the claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment. The judgment excerpt does not state the cash amount of either award, only that the unfair dismissal loss was limited to two weeks' pay and the section 38 award was two weeks' pay.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim well-founded. It applied the Polkey principles at 100% and found the claimant would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed, so the award was limited to two weeks' loss of pay for the period he would have remained employed. The tribunal also recorded that no basic award was payable because the claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The tribunal made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a section 1 written statement of terms and conditions of employment. The award was two weeks' pay, but the judgment excerpt does not state the cash amount.	Upheld	—	—

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.