Case 2600626/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Perritt v Kevin Stansfield Ltd Heard: in Lincoln — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600626/2021
- Decision date
- 3 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Perritt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr D Perritt was unfairly dismissed by Kevin Stansfield Ltd. The judgment records that the hearing was in Lincoln before Employment Judge Ayre sitting alone on 1 December 2021, with the claimant in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
Although the dismissal was unfair, the tribunal found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal through his conduct. On that basis it made a 100% reduction to both the basic and compensatory awards. It also found that there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been dismissed even if the respondent had followed a fair procedure.
The short written record does not set out any monetary award to the claimant. It does record that the claimant was ordered to pay £500 costs to the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It found the claimant contributed to his dismissal through his conduct and made a 100% reduction to both the basic and compensatory awards. It also found there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been dismissed had a fair procedure been followed. The claimant was ordered to pay £500 costs to the respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
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.