Case 2602786/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Cooper v BS Labels Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602786/2020
- Decision date
- 19 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Cooper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone at Nottingham before Employment Judge Victoria Butler, found that Mr N Cooper's unfair dismissal claim against BS Labels Limited was well founded and succeeded. The judgment records that the claim was determined orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
On remedy, the tribunal applied the principle in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited and concluded that there was a 100% chance that the Claimant would have been dismissed fairly in any event. On that basis, the compensatory award was reduced by 100%.
The tribunal also stated that there was no entitlement to a basic award because it was extinguished by the payment of a redundancy payment. No separate monetary figures for the compensatory award, basic award, interest, or any overall award are given in the written judgment record, and the effect of the reductions is that no award is recorded as payable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded. It applied Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited and held there was a 100% chance the Claimant would have been dismissed fairly in any event, so the compensatory award was reduced by 100%. The judgment also states there was no entitlement to a basic award because it was extinguished by the payment of a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
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.