Case 3307432/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3307432/2018
- Decision date
- 14 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Sutton, Mr P Miller
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination claims. No detail is given in the extracted text beyond the fact of dismissal, so the judgment record is limited to that outcome.
The tribunal found that the claimant was procedurally unfairly dismissed. It also recorded a 100% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award, meaning no compensatory payment was made on the basis recorded in the judgment.
The only monetary award stated in the judgment was a full basic award of £5,134.50. No separate compensatory figure, interest figure, or injury to feelings award is set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the claims of disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had been procedurally unfairly dismissed and ordered a full basic award of £5,134.50. It applied a 100% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award, so no compensatory sum is recorded in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | £5,135 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,135
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,135
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey reduction
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.