Case 6023575/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023575/2024
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation For
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that Mr Manuel Trillo Fernandez was unfairly dismissed by Greene King Retail Services Limited. The judgment records no other claim type and no separate liability findings beyond unfair dismissal.
On remedy, the tribunal found there was a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. It also said it was just and equitable to reduce the basic award payable to the claimant by 100% because of the claimant’s conduct before the dismissal.
The extracted judgment does not set out any monetary figure for the basic award, compensatory award, or total award, so no final sum can be extracted from the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded and found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also found there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and said it was just and equitable to reduce the basic award payable by 100% because of the claimant’s conduct before dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.