Case 2501869/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Palmer v Beaumont Accountancy Services Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501869/2020
- Decision date
- 1 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Palmer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 1 February 2021, Employment Judge S Shore held that Miss A Palmer’s claim of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. The judgment recorded that the claimant had contributed to her own dismissal by 50%, and that any basic or compensatory award would be reduced by that percentage. The tribunal also stated that there should be no deduction of compensation in the unfair dismissal claim under the principle in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s breach of contract claim, described as non-payment of notice pay, was well-founded and succeeded. No liability findings were made in relation to remedy beyond the direction that the issue would be dealt with at a later hearing.
The judgment did not determine the amount of any award at this stage. It stated that remedy would be heard on 8 March 2021, so no basic award, compensatory award, or total sum was fixed in this liability judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded. It held that the claimant contributed to her own dismissal by 50% and directed that any basic or compensatory award be reduced by that percentage. It also recorded that there should be no deduction under the Polkey principle. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was stated to be for non-payment of notice pay and was found well-founded and successful. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing, so no sum was fixed in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
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.