Case 6014225/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Russel Parkes v Interflex Electrical Engineering Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014225/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Russel Parkes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 13 January 2025 before Employment Judge Adkinson sitting alone, the tribunal heard from both parties and found that Mr Russel Parkes had been unfairly dismissed by Interflex Electrical Engineering Ltd. The judgment records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by its director, Mr R Smith.
The tribunal further found that the claimant contributed to his own dismissal by 50%. The judgment does not set out written reasons, stating that reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The only remedy recorded in the written judgment is a basic award adjusted for contributory fault.
The respondent was ordered to pay £4,725 to the claimant as the adjusted basic award. No compensatory award, injury to feelings award, or interest is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant. It also found that the claimant contributed to his own dismissal by 50%, and the award was a basic award adjusted for contributory fault. | Upheld | — | £4,725 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,725
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,725
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.