Case 3301416/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Davies, Solicitor For the v Mr L Werenowski, Legal Representative Tribunal appointed interpreter in the Polish language — 2022

Case reference: 3301416/2021
Decision date: 4 March 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge George Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr J Davies, Solicitor For the

Respondent

Mr L Werenowski, Legal Representative Tribunal appointed interpreter in the Polish language

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that the claims for redundancy payment and unauthorised deduction from wages were dismissed on withdrawal. The remaining claim for unfair dismissal succeeded, with the tribunal finding that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.

On remedy, the tribunal stated that there would be no deduction from compensation to reflect the prospect that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed had a fair process taken place. It did, however, order a 10% deduction from the basic award under s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and from the compensatory award under s.123(6) ERA 1996 because of conduct. The period of loss was identified as 21 January 2021 to 9 February 2021, and the remaining issues were listed for a remedy hearing on 7 March 2022.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal made no deduction to reflect the prospect of fair dismissal had a fair process taken place, but it applied a 10% deduction from both the basic award and the compensatory award because of conduct. Remedy was to be considered at a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Redundancy	Dismissed on withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Dismissed on withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

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.