Case 2600260/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Williamson v Absolute Home Care Nottingham Limited FINAL HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600260/2021
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Williamson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting remotely at the Midlands (East) Employment Tribunal on 8 and 9 December 2021 before Employment Judge Camp, gave oral reasons and found that Mr G Williamson was unfairly dismissed by Absolute Home Care Nottingham Limited. The judgment records only that finding and does not set out written reasons unless requested within 14 days.
For remedy, the tribunal stated that no reduction was to be made under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It further recorded that any compensatory award was reduced to one week’s pay pursuant to the Polkey principle, citing Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8.
The written record also says that, without prejudice to any appeal or reconsideration application, and in light of the claimant seeking compensation only, the parties agreed the basic award was £598.50 and the compensatory award was £133, producing a total award of £731.50.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also recorded that, for remedy, no reduction was to be made under sections 122(2) and 123(6) ERA 1996, and that any compensatory award was reduced to one week’s pay under the Polkey principle. The written record states that the parties agreed the claimant had sought compensation only and that the basic award was £598.50 and the compensatory award was £133. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £732
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £599
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £133
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
- sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.