Case 3305005/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Benjamin Wright v Vistry Homes Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305005/2024
- Decision date
- 1 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Benjamin Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Benjamin Wright had been unfairly dismissed by Vistry Homes Limited. No other substantive claims are recorded in the extracted judgment, and the judgment identifies the complaint as one of unfair dismissal only.
Although the claim succeeded, the tribunal found that the claimant’s conduct contributed to his dismissal and reduced the basic award by 100% under s.122(2) ERA 1996. It also held that it was just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award by 100% under s.123(6) ERA 1996.
The tribunal further found, applying the Polkey principle from Polkey v AE Dayton Services [1987] IRLR 503 HL, that had the respondent followed a fair procedure the claimant would have been dismissed in any event. The extracted judgment does not state the monetary amounts of any award or the final total after reductions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal well founded. It reduced the basic award by 100% under s.122(2) ERA 1996 because the claimant’s conduct contributed to dismissal, reduced the compensatory award by 100% under s.123(6) ERA 1996, and applied a 100% Polkey reduction on the basis that dismissal would have occurred in any event had a fair procedure been followed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services [1987] IRLR 503 HL
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.