Case 6002245/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Benjamin Mercer v F W Marsh Electrical and Mechanical Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002245/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David C.
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Benjamin Mercer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Benjamin Mercer’s complaint of unfair dismissal against F W Marsh Electrical and Mechanical Ltd was well-founded. It found that a fair disciplinary process would inevitably have resulted in dismissal, and said it was just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award by 100% for that reason.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures in respect of the dismissal. It applied a 10% increase to the compensatory award under section 207A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
However, the tribunal found that the dismissal was entirely caused or contributed to by the claimant’s own culpable actions. On that basis, it reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 100% under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because the basic and compensatory awards were reduced in full, the tribunal ordered that the respondent pay no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded, but then reduced the awards to nil. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.207A(2) TULR(C)A 1992
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.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.