Case 2501862/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Colin Kane v Debmat Surfacing Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501862/2020
- Decision date
- 11 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pitt Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Colin Kane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mr Colin Kane’s unfair dismissal claim against Debmat Surfacing Limited. The written judgment records only the operative findings, with reasons having been given orally at the hearing. No additional findings of fact are set out in the published text beyond the conclusion that the dismissal was unfair.
On remedy, the tribunal applied Polkey and found there was a 25% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. It directed that any compensation awarded should be reduced accordingly. The tribunal also stated that the compensatory award was not to be reduced for the claimant’s conduct. No monetary amount is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It applied Polkey and held there was a 25% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed, so any compensation awarded was to be reduced accordingly. The compensatory award was not to be reduced for the claimant’s conduct. No monetary figure is stated in the written record. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.