Case 6021051/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Neil Holmes v Common Edge Healthcare Limited AT A HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021051/2024
- Decision date
- 19 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Neil Holmes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the tribunal declared that Mr Neil Holmes was unfairly dismissed by Common Edge Healthcare Limited. The respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of GBP 3,088.80, reduced by 50 per cent because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal.
The tribunal stated that it was not just and equitable to make any compensatory award for unfair dismissal. The claim of wrongful dismissal, described in the judgment as breach of contract, was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment declares by consent that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The basic award was reduced by 50 per cent because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal; no compensatory award was made. | Upheld | — | £3,089 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as the claim of wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) and dismisses it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,089
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,089
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.