Case 3202253/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gregory Whittaker v Poundland Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202253/2020
- Decision date
- 7 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gregory Whittaker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal entered judgment that Mr Gregory Whittaker was unfairly dismissed by Poundland Limited, in breach of s94 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The written judgment records that any compensatory award would be reduced by 5% for the claimant's culpable or blameworthy conduct under s123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also records a further 12.5% reduction from the compensatory award for the claimant's failure to appeal against his dismissal under s207A Trades Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record does not include detailed findings of fact or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed in breach of s94 Employment Rights Act 1996. It records deductions to any compensatory award but does not state a monetary remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s207A Trades Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.