Case 3304233/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Tony Wright v R.H. Claydon Ltd Remedy Hearing — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304233/2023
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyes
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Tony Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found the claimant's unfair dismissal claim well founded and held that he was unfairly dismissed. It stated that the unfair dismissal compensatory award was subject to a 10% reduction for contributory fault, no Polkey reduction, and a 10% increase for failure to follow the ACAS code.
The tribunal also found the claimant's wrongful dismissal claim well founded and held that he was wrongfully dismissed. The redundancy pay and holiday pay claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not state any monetary remedy figures.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, but it does not state a monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states the wrongful dismissal claim was well founded and that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed, but it does not state a monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that, on withdrawal, the redundancy pay claim is dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that, on withdrawal, the holiday pay claim is dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Polkey reduction
- ACAS code
- contributory fault
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.
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.