Case 3311075/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Mateo v British Airways plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 3311075/2024
- Decision date
- 13 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Mateo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr C Mateo's complaint of unfair dismissal against British Airways PLC was well-founded, meaning that the respondent unfairly dismissed him. It recorded that any compensatory award for unfair dismissal would be reduced by 30% under the principles in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited 1988 ICR 142, and that the claimant contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 20%, to be applied to both the basic award and the compensatory award.
The tribunal also held that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without his full period of notice. The judgment stated that this meant the claimant was wrongfully dismissed.
No remedy figure was awarded in this judgment. The tribunal recorded that remedy for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal would be decided at a further hearing on 4 September 2026.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. Remedy was reserved to a further hearing on 4 September 2026, with Polkey and contributory fault reductions recorded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without his full period of notice, meaning that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. Remedy was reserved to a further hearing on 4 September 2026. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited 1988 ICR 142
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.