Case 6015001/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Olivia Messer v Literal Humans Limited HELD AT: Leeds Employment Tribunal (Hybrid in person hearing) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6015001/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley Tribunal
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Fawcett, Tribunal Member Rhodes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Olivia Messer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought four claims against the respondent (Literal Humans Limited): ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure, statutory redundancy payment, and breach of contract for unpaid notice. The hearing was a hybrid liability-only hearing limited to liability, conduct and contributory fault, compliance with ACAS codes, and any Polkey deduction; the remainder of remedy was reserved to a separate hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the ordinary unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims and dismissed the protected-disclosure and redundancy-payment claims. No reduction was made to the compensatory award for contributory fault, and no reduction to the basic award for conduct. A 10% deduction will be applied to the compensatory award under the Polkey principles to reflect the chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event in light of the respondent's financial position. The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures was found not to apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal succeeded. A 10% Polkey deduction will be applied to the compensatory award to reflect the chance the claimant would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosure) was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal (unpaid notice pay) succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim for a statutory redundancy payment was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
- section 122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(6) Employment Rights Act 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.