Case 3311779/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C. Ocloo For the v Ms C Nicolaou (Solicitor) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311779/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hunt Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C. Ocloo For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford on 29-30 November 2023 before Employment Judge Hunt. The tribunal held that the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and that she had been unfairly dismissed by Metroline Travel Limited.
The tribunal rejected the wrongful dismissal claim, finding that it was not well-founded. It also recorded that the claimant was seeking compensation only, and that compensation would be determined at a later remedy hearing listed for 14 February 2024.
In relation to remedy, the tribunal directed that the basic award should be reduced by 75% because of the claimant's conduct prior to dismissal. It also directed that the compensatory award should be reduced by 75% on the basis that the claimant would likely have been dismissed had the respondent acted fairly. The tribunal added that the compensatory award would not be subject to any further deduction for contributory conduct.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Compensation was not assessed in this decision; the tribunal said that would be dealt with at a later remedy hearing listed for 14 February 2024. The tribunal indicated that the basic award would be reduced by 75% for the claimant's conduct before dismissal and the compensatory award would be reduced by 75% because it considered she would likely have been dismissed had the respondent acted fairly. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal claim was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.