Case 3302424/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr. M. Arnold , Employment Law 4 U For the v Ms. D. Ajibade, Peninsula Group Limited — 2023

Case reference: 3302424/2022
Decision date: 9 March 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Coll
Venue: Watford face to face in-person

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr. M. Arnold , Employment Law 4 U For the

Respondent

Ms. D. Ajibade, Peninsula Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Mrs Yapp was unfairly dismissed by Murray Productions Ltd on 4 January 2022. It held that the principal reason for dismissal was not one falling within section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and it recorded that there had been no investigation before dismissal.

The tribunal also found that there were no grounds to reduce compensation for Polkey or for contributory fault. The hearing addressed whether there should be an uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS disciplinary code, and the tribunal found that an uplift of 15% should apply.

This written record does not set out any final monetary award. It records the liability findings and the determination that a 15% ACAS uplift was to be applied, but it does not state the basic award, compensatory award, interest, or total award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 4 January 2022. This was a liability judgment only; no final monetary award is recorded in the extracted text.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 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.