Case 3305795/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W L Bailey v Rydal Communications Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305795/2023
- Decision date
- 25 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Danvers REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- By video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W L Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr W L Bailey brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Rydal Communications Ltd. The case was heard by Employment Judge Danvers by video on 18-19 January 2024, and the written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal further found that there should be no reduction to compensation for the chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event if the respondent had followed a fair procedure. It also found that the claimant did not cause or contribute to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct and that it was not just and equitable to reduce the basic award for any conduct by the claimant before dismissal. No monetary figures are stated in the written judgment extract.
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 and stated that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also recorded that there would be no reduction for the chance of a fair dismissal in any event and no reduction to the basic award for contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.