Case 2603117/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S J Asher v Queniborough Aluminium Services Limited — 2021

Case reference: 2603117/2020
Decision date: 25 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Brewer Representation
Venue: Midlands East Region via cloud Video Platform

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr S J Asher

Respondent

Queniborough Aluminium Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

On 25 June 2021, Employment Judge Brewer dismissed the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed the breach of contract claim. The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim, finding that the dismissal was procedurally unfair.

The tribunal further found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal by 100%. The judgment records that the claimant was awarded pay for the period 7 April 2020 to 13 April 2020 uplifted by 25%, and states that there shall be no further awards. The extracted text does not state a sterling amount for that award.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996 failed.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The breach of contract claim failed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It also found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal by 100%.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.