Case 2602125/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Palmer v D & R Motor Engineers Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602125/2019
- Decision date
- 22 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Palmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Faulkner, sitting alone in Nottingham on 19 November 2019, found that Mr S Palmer's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. The judgment records that, on the grounds of the claimant's conduct before dismissal, it was just and equitable to make no basic award.
The tribunal also applied the principle in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd and held that no compensatory award should be made because the dismissal was caused by the actions of the claimant. The judgment does not record any monetary award being paid on the unfair dismissal claim.
Mr Palmer's separate complaint of breach of contract, pleaded as failure to give notice, was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded, but made no basic award because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal and no compensatory award applying the Polkey principle. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Breach of contract | The claim was for failure to give notice and was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
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.