Case 3307328/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Murphy v J O’Doherty Haulage Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307328/2020
- Decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant withdrew his breach of contract claim, and the tribunal dismissed it. No separate monetary award was recorded for that claim.
On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal first held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint within the limitation period, and that he had presented it within a reasonable time after that. The tribunal therefore accepted jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded and it succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay compensation at a figure to be determined, and the judgment stated that there would be no reduction for Polkey, blameworthy conduct, or failure to mitigate.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant withdrew this claim, and it was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint within the limitation period and that it was presented within a reasonable time thereafter. The complaint succeeded, and compensation was left to be determined without any reduction for Polkey, blameworthy conduct, or failure to mitigate. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- not reasonably practicable
- Polkey
- failure to mitigate
- blameworthy conduct
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.