Case 3322733/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Kifle v IKEA Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3322733/2021
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Bean, Mr W Sykes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Kifle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded. It recorded that the Polkey reduction was zero, and that reductions of 15% would be made to the basic award and compensatory award under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 respectively.
The Tribunal also held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and was entitled to damages for failure to give notice. Some race discrimination complaints were out of time and time was not extended, while the remaining race discrimination complaints and all sex discrimination complaints failed on the merits and were dismissed.
By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay a sum that would leave the claimant with £35,000 after tax and any PAYE deductions. The judgment states that oral reasons were given and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded. It also records a zero Polkey reduction and a 15% reduction to the basic and compensatory awards, but does not state separate award figures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and was entitled to damages for failure to give notice, but does not state a separate figure for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination complaints at list of issues paragraphs 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 were out of time and time was not extended, so they were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The remaining race discrimination complaints at paragraphs 4.1.2, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 failed on the merits and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination complaints at list of issues paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 failed on the merits and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £35,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey reduction
- sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the 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.