Case 3322482/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Liberadski, counsel v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3322482/2016
- Decision date
- 29 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs A Brown, Mr D Gregory
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Liberadski, counsel
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was remitted by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 2 July 2018 for reconsideration by the same tribunal. The tribunal heard oral and written submissions on 25 and 26 November 2019 and then gave this unanimous judgment.
On the unfair dismissal complaint under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal revoked the original decision and found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also found there were no grounds for any reduction under the Polkey principle.
The tribunal further found, by majority, that the dismissal was caused or contributed to by the claimant's conduct. It therefore held that any award would be reduced by 30% under sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996.
On the breach of contract / wrongful dismissal complaint under article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994, the tribunal revoked the original decision and held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. The respondent's application for a costs order was refused. A one-day remedy hearing was listed for 18 June 2020, so this judgment did not determine the final monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal revoked the original decision and held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed on the breach of contract complaint. No monetary award was determined in this judgment, and remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It found no grounds for any reduction under the Polkey principle, but by majority found that dismissal was caused or contributed to by the claimant's conduct and that any award would be reduced by 30% under sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996. Remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey principle
- sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 3 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.