Cases6019234/2024

Claimant v Peepul Enterprise Limited

12 November 2025Before Employment Judge NewLeicester

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Holiday Paysucceeded

The tribunal found the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant for 10 days of accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment.

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair. The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. However, the tribunal found a 75% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event (Polkey reduction).

Facts

The claimant was dismissed by the respondent without proper procedure. On termination, the respondent failed to pay the claimant for 10 days of accrued but untaken holiday. The respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code on disciplinary procedures when dismissing the claimant.

Decision

The tribunal found both claims succeeded. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded but with a significant 75% Polkey reduction as the tribunal found the claimant would likely have been fairly dismissed anyway. A 25% ACAS uplift was applied for the respondent's failure to follow proper procedures. The holiday pay claim succeeded in full with no reductions.

Practical note

Even where a dismissal is substantively fair, significant procedural failures can render it unfair, though substantial Polkey reductions may apply alongside ACAS uplifts where the outcome would likely have been the same.

Adjustments

Polkey reduction75%

75% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event

ACAS uplift+25%

Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

Case details

Case number
6019234/2024
Decision date
12 November 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister