Case 6020377/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J Lawson v Mitie Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020377/2024
- Decision date
- 30 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J Lawson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Lawson succeeded in his unfair dismissal claim against Mitie Ltd. Employment Judge KM Ross found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed for procedural reasons, pursuant to sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing took place at Manchester by CVP on 16 and 17 June 2025.
On remedy, the tribunal applied the principle in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd and found there was a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed. For that reason, the compensatory award was nil.
In the alternative, the tribunal found that the claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct. It held that it was just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award by 100% on that basis, and also just and equitable to reduce the basic award by 100% because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal. The effect was that no monetary award was payable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair for procedural reasons under sections 95 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. It then found that, applying Polkey, the compensatory award was nil because there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed had a fair procedure been followed; it also reduced the basic award by 100% because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
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
2 references- sections 95 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd 1987 IRLR 503
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.