Case 6007139/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Phumaphi, counsel For the v Mr Armstrong, director. — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007139/2024
- Decision date
- 26 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Phumaphi, counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the parties agreed the claimant was dismissed without notice on 15 May 2024. It found the unfair dismissal claim well founded, but also found that the claimant had resigned on 19 April 2024 and that his employment would have ended on 17 May 2024 in any event.
On remedy, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct had contributed to the dismissal. It referred to findings about sexual harassment of Ms Y on 17 March 2024 and aggressive conduct involving possession of a large bladed knife in the workplace on 23 April 2024, and concluded that each matter could fairly be described as gross misconduct likely to bring the employment relationship to an end.
The tribunal reduced both the compensatory award under section 123(6) ERA and the basic award under section 122(2) ERA by 100% to nil. The judgment also records that the age discrimination claim had been withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded, but reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 100% to nil because of contributory conduct. It also found the claimant had resigned and that employment would have ended on 17 May 2024 in any event. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Age discrimination | The judgment records that the age discrimination claim had been withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey deduction
- section 123(6) ERA
- section 122(2) ERA
- range of reasonable responses
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.