Case 3300939/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Ezike (solicitor-advocate) For the v Mr S Gittens (counsel) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300939/2024
- Decision date
- 17 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wyeth
- Panel members
- Mr M Kaltz, Ms K Omer
Parties
2 namedMr C Ezike (solicitor-advocate) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJudgment by Employment Judge Wyeth with lay members Mr M Kaltz and Ms K Omer at Watford by CVP. The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed but that there was a 75% chance he would have been fairly dismissed in any event (Polkey reduction). A 50% contributory conduct reduction was applied to both basic and compensatory awards. The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim and his race discrimination claim were dismissed as not well-founded. By way of remedy for unfair dismissal (subject to the recoupment provisions), the respondent was ordered to pay £31,909.76: a basic award of £2,572 (£5,144 reduced by 50%); and a compensatory award of £29,337.76 covering past losses (£15,849.77 prescribed element after Polkey and contributory deductions) and future losses including loss of statutory rights, employment benefits (car allowance, private health care), pension loss and grossing-up (£13,487.99 non-prescribed element). The prescribed period for recoupment is 11 October 2023 to 13 November 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £31,910 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,910
- Basic award
- £2,572
- Compensatory award
- £29,338
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.