Case 3324947/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Douglas Nicholls v Wellington Engineering Co Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3324947/2019
- Decision date
- 12 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hanning
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Douglas Nicholls
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 8 April 2021 before Employment Judge Hanning sitting alone, the tribunal held that Mr Douglas Nicholls was unfairly dismissed by Wellington Engineering Co Limited. The judgment records that Mr Nicholls contributed to his dismissal by his own conduct, and the tribunal therefore reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 50% under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
After that reduction, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,342.60 compensation for unfair dismissal. It also stated that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply. Mr Nicholls's separate claim for unlawful deduction from wages was found not well-founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but reduced the basic and compensatory awards by 50% because the claimant contributed to his dismissal by his own conduct, under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,343 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,343
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 122(2) and 123(6) 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.