Case 3307828/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Doherty v J. Murphy & Sons Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3307828/2020
- Decision date
- 24 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hanning
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Doherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hanning, sitting alone at Watford by remote CVP hearing on 23 and 24 August 2021, found that Mr J Doherty was unfairly dismissed by J Murphy & Sons Limited. The judgment records that the hearing was conducted remotely with no objection from the parties.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had contributed to his dismissal by his own conduct, so the basic and compensatory awards were reduced by 50% under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. After that reduction, the respondent was ordered to pay £9,636.78 in compensation for unfair dismissal.
The judgment also states that the Recoupment Regulations do not apply. No separate figures are given for the unreduced basic award or compensatory award, and no other claims or remedies are identified in the extracted decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It reduced the basic and compensatory awards by 50% because the claimant contributed to his dismissal by his own conduct. The judgment records only the final compensation figure after that reduction, not separate unreduced basic and compensatory amounts. | Upheld | — | £9,637 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,637
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ss.122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.