Case 2600267/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Thornley v North West Leicestershire District Council Heard: Cloud Video Platform Regi — 2022

Case reference: 2600267/2021
Decision date: 20 May 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Broughton Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Thornley

Respondent

North West Leicestershire District Council Heard: Cloud Video Platform Regi

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 152(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was dismissed on withdrawal. The respondent was North West Leicestershire District Council, and the case was heard by Employment Judge R Broughton on 16, 17, 18 and 19 May 2022.

The claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found to be well founded and succeeded. The tribunal stated that the award would be subject to a 50% deduction to both the basic award and the compensatory award for contributory fault.

The claimant requested compensation, but the judgment did not fix the amount. A remedy hearing was to be listed to determine the compensation payable, so no monetary figure was recorded in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	Claim under section 152(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the judgment records that it was dismissed on withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The claim under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found well founded and succeeded, subject to a 50% deduction to both the basic award and compensatory award for contributory fault.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.