Case 3334674/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Grossman (Counsel) v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3334674/2018
- Decision date
- 10 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms B Grossman (Counsel)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms R Sood was unfairly dismissed by British Airways plc because the respondent failed to provide an appeal against the decision to confirm dismissal. The judgment records that this procedural failing made the dismissal unfair for the purposes of the claim before the tribunal.
On remedy, the tribunal concluded that any appeal would have had a 50% chance of success, and it therefore directed that there should be a Polkey reduction of 50% to any compensatory award. The tribunal also stated that the basic award was payable in full.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for reinstatement to her old job. It also recorded that the claimant did not apply for re-engagement to any other role. If the parties could not agree compensation, the claimant was to apply for a remedy hearing before Employment Judge Smail.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the dismissal unfair because the respondent did not provide an appeal against the decision to confirm dismissal. Remedy was not quantified in this judgment; the tribunal stated that any compensatory award would be subject to a 50% Polkey reduction. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey reduction
- basic award
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.