Case 6003446/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Squibb v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003446/2024
- Decision date
- 11 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Winfield Representation
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Squibb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Winfield, sitting alone at CVP on 14-16 July 2025, found that the claimant Mr David Squibb was constructively unfairly dismissed by Lidl Great Britain Limited.
The Tribunal reduced the basic award payable to the claimant by 100% under section 122(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on the basis that it was just and equitable to do so because of the claimant's conduct before the dismissal. The compensatory award was reduced by 95% on Polkey principles for contributory fault. No other adjustments were made.
The compensatory award was calculated by reference to two months gross salary (£2,132), two months loss of pension (£212.90) and £350 for loss of statutory rights (totalling £2,694.90), less the 95% reduction, giving a final award of £134.75. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal upheld. Basic award reduced by 100% under s.122(2) ERA 1996 for the claimant's conduct before dismissal; compensatory award reduced by 95% on Polkey principles. | Upheld | — | £135 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £135
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £135
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey principles
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.