Case 3312925/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mario Nicolas v Philips Accountants (Southgate) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312925/2022
- Decision date
- 19 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mario Nicolas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Mario Nicolas was dismissed on 14 September 2022 after an incident over payroll files and a wider dispute about his conduct. The respondent said the reason was misconduct, including alleged file throwing, calling clients “stupid”, telling a colleague to “f’off”, lateness, and personal use of phone and computer. The tribunal accepted that Mr Papaphilippou genuinely believed the claimant had misconduct issues, but it found that belief was not based on reasonable grounds and that there had been no reasonable investigation.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had called a client “stupid”, told a colleague to “f’off”, and was sometimes late and used his phone or computer for short personal periods. It did not accept that the respondent had investigated those matters, given warnings, or held any disciplinary meeting before dismissal. It also found there was no meaningful appeal process: the claimant asked for an independent manager appeal, but none was provided.
Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held the dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses and was unfair. It also held that the conduct proved did not amount to gross misconduct, so the claimant was wrongfully dismissed as well. The tribunal rejected any deduction for contributory conduct and held that Polkey did not apply because there was no chance the claimant would have been dismissed fairly at the time or in the foreseeable future.
On remedy, the tribunal held that the claimant could not rely on continuity from his earlier employment with Phillips Enterprises because associated-employer continuity was not proved. It therefore assessed the basic award on 10 years’ service only. The final award was £5,048 basic award, £2,812.50 compensatory award, and £2,524.00 wrongful dismissal award, making £10,384.50 in total. The tribunal also applied a 25% ACAS uplift and recorded that the claimant had found new work on 24 October 2022 and had mitigated his loss sufficiently.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed under s.98 ERA 1996. Final unfair dismissal losses were £7,860.50, made up of a basic award of £5,048 and a compensatory award of £2,812.50; the compensatory figure included the ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £7,861 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was wrongfully dismissed because the conduct established did not amount to gross misconduct entitling dismissal without notice. The final wrongful dismissal award was £2,524.00, including notice pay and the ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £2,524 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,385
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,048
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,813
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Boys and Girls Welfare Society v McDonald
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.207 TULR(C)A 1992
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson
- Langley and another v Burlo
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.218 ERA 1996
- s.231 ERA 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.