Case 2500615/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Rathbone v Scott Hammond Roofing Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500615/2024
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McGregor By
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Rathbone
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr B Rathbone brought claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. The case was heard on 10 July 2024 by Employment Judge McGregor sitting at Newcastle. Both parties attended a contested merits hearing; the claimant appeared in person and was represented by Mrs S Rathbone, and the respondent was represented by solicitor Mr P Hargreaves.
The tribunal dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim as not well founded. It also dismissed the claim for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal as not well founded. Those two claims did not result in any award.
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal found that Mr Rathbone was unfairly dismissed. However, it also found that there was a 100% chance he would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and therefore ordered a full reduction of any compensatory award. The tribunal further recorded that, had it been relevant to the amount of compensation, it would have found 100% contributory fault on the claimant's part, but no further reduction was made because of the full reduction already applied.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim identified in the judgment as failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but recorded a 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, leading to a full reduction of any compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
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.