Claimant v Chelmsford City Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. However, the tribunal awarded zero basic award and only one month's net pay as compensatory award, suggesting significant reductions were applied, though the specific reasoning for the unfair dismissal finding is not detailed in this judgment extract.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claim for direct age discrimination pursuant to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded and dismissed it. The specific reasons for rejecting the age discrimination claim are not provided in this judgment extract.
Facts
Mr Nathan Jones brought claims against Chelmsford City Council for unfair dismissal and direct age discrimination. The case was heard over four days in April and May 2024, with the judgment delivered in chambers on 15 July 2024. The claimant represented himself while the respondent was represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed but awarded zero basic award and only one month's net pay as compensatory award, to be agreed by the parties. The tribunal rejected the claimant's age discrimination claim, finding it not well-founded.
Practical note
An unfair dismissal finding does not guarantee substantial compensation, as significant reductions or other factors can result in minimal awards, including a zero basic award.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3205270/2022
- Decision date
- 25 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No