Case 4106411/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Dikmoniene v Group Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106411/2019
- Decision date
- 3 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Dikmoniene
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Dundee, with Employment Judge I McFatridge sitting alone, held that Miss D Dikmoniene was unfairly dismissed by NIC Services Group Ltd. The extracted judgment states the outcome only and does not set out the underlying factual findings or detailed reasons, with full written reasons to follow in due course.
The tribunal awarded a monetary sum of £120. It recorded that compensation was reduced to take account of the claimant's contribution to her dismissal under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and also to reflect the Polkey principle. The judgment states that there was no prescribed element.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It awarded £120 after reducing compensation to reflect the claimant's contribution to the dismissal under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Polkey principle. The judgment states that there was no prescribed element. | Upheld | — | £120 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £120
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Polkey principle
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.