Case 3219926/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Z Kabir v John Lewis plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 3219926/2020
- Decision date
- 12 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Z Kabir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Z Kabir brought claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and failure to pay holiday pay against John Lewis PLC. The matter was heard at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 8 June and 12 November 2021 before Employment Judge Jones. The claimant was represented by Mr Z T Simret, Legal Executive; the respondent by Ms L Gould of counsel. The claimant had been employed since October 2002 and dismissed on 29 July 2020 (over 17 years' service). The reason for dismissal was conduct relating to text messages the claimant had sent to a colleague (Mr Ford).
The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded. Although the claimant's text messages were inappropriate behaviour to a Partner, the Tribunal held the respondent had treated them as an intent to harm and as threatening and intimidating without evidence, and that summary dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded because the conduct was not gross misconduct entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. The holiday pay complaint was dismissed on withdrawal.
In the remedy calculation, a 10% reduction was applied to the basic award (£9,953 to £8,957.70) reflecting long service, the claimant's apology, and his attempts to speak to Mr Ford on 20 July. A 25% reduction was applied to the compensatory award (£41,425.86 to £31,069.40) because the claimant's text messages had contributed to his dismissal in a foolish and reckless way. Twelve weeks' notice pay at £597.15 = £7,165.80. The Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to make a Polkey deduction. Total award: £47,192.90.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim succeeded. Basic award £8,957.70 (£9,953.00 less 10% contributory fault reduction). Compensatory award £31,069.40 (£41,425.86 from 67 weeks' lost earnings, pension and statutory rights, less 25% contributory fault reduction). The respondent's summary dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. | Upheld | — | £40,027 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. The Tribunal found the conduct was misconduct but not gross misconduct. Twelve weeks' notice pay at £597.15 = £7,165.80. | Upheld | — | £7,166 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint of failure to pay holiday pay (Working Time Regulations 1998) dismissed on withdrawal; the claimant accepted the respondent's explanation of his entitlement at the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £47,193
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,958
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £31,069
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- band of reasonable responses
- s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- O'Connor v James Taylor Construction Ltd (Watford) Case No. 3300347/2017
- Ramchandani v Citibank NA (East London) Case No. 3200403/2014
- Buchholz v GEZE UK Ltd (Birmingham) Case No. 1305718/2020
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.