Case 2600069/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Morris v Climar Industries Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600069/2023
- Decision date
- 15 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
- Panel members
- Mr C Tansley, Mr R Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Morris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting at Nottingham before Employment Judge Victoria Butler with Mr C Tansley and Mr R Jones, unanimously found that the Claimant, Mr N Morris, was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, Climar Industries Limited. The tribunal concluded that there was an 80% chance the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed had a fair procedure been followed, and accordingly reduced his compensatory award by 80%.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a compensatory award of £8,950.49 together with £500 for loss of statutory rights, giving a total award of £9,450.49. The Claimant's separate claim of direct age discrimination failed and was dismissed.
The written record contains only the judgment; reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard procedure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Compensatory award reduced by 80% to reflect the tribunal's finding that there was an 80% chance the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed had a fair procedure been followed. | Upheld | — | £9,450 |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,450
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,950
- 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.