Case 3306695/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Panton, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 3306695/2019
Decision date: 22 June 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge French Appearances

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr D Panton, Solicitor For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Sherina Kimera brought claims against Jewish Care. The written judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and upheld, and that the wrongful dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed.

For the unfair dismissal remedy, the tribunal ordered a 75% reduction in compensation under Polkey and a further 75% reduction for contributory fault under section 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was made in this judgment; the tribunal recorded that, in the absence of agreement between the parties, remedy would be determined at a hearing on 25 July 2022.

The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested. It does not set out further factual findings or detailed reasoning for the liability outcomes.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment records the claim as well-founded and upheld. Compensation was to be subject to a 75% Polkey reduction and a 75% reduction for contributory fault under section 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996, with remedy to be determined later if not agreed.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The judgment records the wrongful dismissal claim as not well-founded and dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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.