Cases3305005/2024

Claimant v Vistry Homes Limited

1 October 2025Before Employment Judge YoungWatford

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal to be procedurally unfair as the respondent failed to follow a fair procedure. However, the claimant's conduct contributed 100% to the dismissal, and had a fair procedure been followed, the claimant would have been dismissed in any event (Polkey 100%), resulting in no compensation being awarded.

Facts

Mr Wright was dismissed by Vistry Homes Limited, a construction company. The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. However, the claimant's conduct was found to have contributed significantly to the dismissal. The case involved a four-day hearing where the claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal to be unfair but awarded no compensation. The claimant's conduct contributed 100% to the dismissal, reducing both basic and compensatory awards to nil. Additionally, the tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction, finding that even with a fair procedure the claimant would have been dismissed anyway.

Practical note

A finding of unfair dismissal does not guarantee compensation where the employee's conduct fully contributed to dismissal and a fair procedure would inevitably have led to the same outcome.

Adjustments

Polkey reduction100%

The tribunal found that had the respondent followed a fair procedure, the claimant would have been dismissed in any event, resulting in a 100% Polkey reduction

Contributory fault100%

The tribunal found the claimant's conduct contributed to his dismissal, reducing both the basic award (s.122(2) ERA 1996) and compensatory award (s.123(6) ERA 1996) by 100%

Legal authorities cited

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

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.122(2)ERA 1996 s.123(6)

Case details

Case number
3305005/2024
Decision date
1 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
construction
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No