Case 6001404/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J. Holden v Protect Line Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001404/2024
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
- Venue
- Exeter ET via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J. Holden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Holden's unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It also directed that damages should be reduced by 50% for Polkey and by 70% for culpable conduct, indicating that any remedy would be assessed through those reductions rather than on a full compensatory basis.
Mr Holden's direct sex discrimination claim failed and was dismissed. The written judgment records that the hearing was held on 1, 2, 3 and 4 July 2025 before Employment Judge G. King, and that a further hearing was listed for 23 October 2025 to determine remedy if the parties did not agree it beforehand.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It ordered a 50% reduction to damages for Polkey and a 70% reduction to damages for culpable conduct, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant's claim of direct sex discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.