Cases1403144/2024

Claimant v Noyce Insurance Solutions Limited

16 December 2025Before Employment Judge Winfieldremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£911

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair, although procedural defects existed. The respondent had already paid the statutory redundancy payment. A Polkey reduction of 25% was applied indicating the tribunal found there was a chance a fair procedure would have resulted in dismissal, but the unfairness of the actual dismissal was established.

Facts

Nina Nash was dismissed by Noyce Insurance Solutions Limited in circumstances the tribunal found to be unfair. The respondent had already paid the statutory redundancy payment to the claimant. The claimant was represented by a lay representative while the respondent was represented by counsel. The hearing took place remotely over three days in November 2025.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair and awarded a compensatory award calculated on loss of two days' pay, loss of statutory rights of £320, and a net salary reduction of £1385.88 over six months offset by a £600 pension benefit gain. A 25% Polkey reduction was applied. No basic award was made as redundancy payment had already been paid.

Practical note

Even where a dismissal is found to be unfair, tribunals will apply significant Polkey reductions where there is a reasonable chance that a fair procedure would have resulted in dismissal, and will offset benefits gained in new employment against losses.

Award breakdown

Compensatory award£911
Loss of statutory rights£320

Adjustments

Polkey reduction25%

25% reduction applied to compensatory award reflecting the chance that a fair dismissal procedure may have resulted in dismissal

Legal authorities cited

Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142

Case details

Case number
1403144/2024
Decision date
16 December 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
financial services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep