Case 3200601/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Matijosaitis v Vector Lifts Limited (in CVL) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200601/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Matijosaitis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr M Matijosaitis was unfairly dismissed by Vector Lifts Limited (in CVL). It further found that there was a 90% chance he could have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed, and that he contributed 100% to his dismissal.
On remedy, the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to reduce the basic award. It awarded a basic award of £4,282.50.
The tribunal also found that the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance and applied a 20% uplift of £856.50. The total sum awarded was £5,139.00.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. It recorded that there was a 90% chance the claimant could have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed, found that the claimant contributed 100% to his dismissal, and decided it was not just and equitable to reduce the basic award. The respondent was also found to have unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance, leading to a 20% uplift. | Upheld | — | £5,139 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,139
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,283
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.