Case 2500057/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Rutherford v Simon Bailes Ltd. — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500057/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gowland Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Rutherford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr. Rutherford’s claim of unfair dismissal against Simon Bailes Ltd was found well founded and succeeded. The written record states only the outcome and the remedy; the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing, so the document does not set out a detailed written explanation of the liability finding.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,021.80 and a compensatory award for loss of earnings of £2,769.02. It then applied a 10% Polkey deduction to reflect the likelihood of dismissal had correct procedures been followed, and a further 15% deduction for contributory fault. That produced a final adjusted compensatory award of £2,118.30 and a total award of £3,140.10. The tribunal also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded. It awarded a basic award of £1,021.80 and a compensatory award of £2,769.02 for loss of earnings, then applied a 10% Polkey deduction and a 15% deduction for contributory fault, leaving a final compensatory award of £2,118.30 and a total award of £3,140.10. | Upheld | — | £3,140 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,140
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,022
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,118
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey deduction
- contributory fault
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.