Case 2502150/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Wardman v South Tees Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502150/2022
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Wardman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing in Newcastle on 27 and 28 February and 1 March 2023, Employment Judge Sweeney found that Mr S Wardman’s claim of unfair constructive dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. The judgment states that he was unfairly constructively dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the claimant contributed to the dismissal and considered it just and equitable to reduce both the basic award and the compensatory award by 90% to reflect that contribution. The unadjusted basic award was £6,511.70 and the unadjusted compensatory award was £11,784.94.
After the 90% reduction, the respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £651.17 and a compensatory award of £1,178.49, making a total award of £1,829.66.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the claim as one of unfair constructive dismissal and states that it succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant contributed to the dismissal and reduced the awards by 90%. | Upheld | — | £1,830 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,830
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £651
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,178
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.