Case 3312882/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Cutmore v McFarlane Telfer Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312882/2022
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Cutmore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr C Cutmore's claim of unfair dismissal was well-founded and upheld it. The judgment records no other claim types or substantive liability findings beyond that single outcome.
On remedy, the tribunal stated that no reduction in compensatory award would be made under the rule in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd. It also recorded that a 15% reduction would be applied to the compensatory award pursuant to s123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The extracted text does not state the underlying factual reasons for the unfair dismissal finding, nor does it set out the final monetary award. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and upheld. The extracted text does not state a separate monetary figure for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142
- s123(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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.