Case 3303449/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented. For the v Travis Perkins Trading Company Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303449/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondent was represented by its in-house solicitor, Mrs R Dawson. Employment Judge Laidler heard the case at Bury St Edmunds on 8 October 2019 and gave judgment orally.
The only claim recorded in the judgment was unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant by reason of conduct, which it treated as a potentially fair reason within s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It then held that the respondent acted fairly in all the circumstances of the case within s.98(4).
The tribunal dismissed the claims. It added that, even if it had found any procedural shortcomings in the dismissal process, the claimant would have wholly contributed to his own dismissal such that any basic and/or compensatory award would have been reduced by 100%. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct, which it treated as a potentially fair reason under s.98 ERA 1996, and held the dismissal fair in all the circumstances under s.98(4). It also said that even if there had been procedural shortcomings, the claimant would have wholly contributed to his own dismissal such that any basic and/or compensatory award would have been reduced by 100%. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.