Cases6003446/2024

Claimant v Lidl Great Britain Limited

5 September 2025Before Employment Judge Winfieldremote video

Outcome

Partly successful£135

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalsucceeded

The Tribunal found that the Claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. However, the Tribunal found the Claimant's conduct before dismissal was so significant that it was just and equitable to reduce the basic award by 100%, and applied a 95% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award, indicating the dismissal would almost certainly have occurred fairly in any event.

Facts

Mr Squibb worked for Lidl Great Britain Limited and resigned, claiming constructive dismissal. The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent had committed a fundamental breach of contract entitling him to resign. However, the evidence revealed significant misconduct by the Claimant prior to his resignation. The Claimant was unrepresented while the Respondent was represented by a solicitor at a three-day remote hearing.

Decision

The Tribunal found the Claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed but reduced the basic award to zero due to his pre-dismissal conduct and applied a 95% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award. The final award of £134.75 represented only 5% of the calculated two months' loss plus loss of statutory rights, reflecting the near certainty that he would have been fairly dismissed in any event.

Practical note

Even where constructive dismissal is established, Tribunals can reduce awards to near-zero levels where the claimant's conduct makes dismissal almost inevitable and it would be inequitable to make a substantial award.

Award breakdown

Compensatory award£135

Adjustments

Polkey reduction95%

95% reduction applied on Polkey principles, indicating a 95% probability that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event

Contributory fault100%

100% reduction to basic award under s.122(2) ERA 1996 for the Claimant's conduct before dismissal

Legal authorities cited

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

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.122(2)

Case details

Case number
6003446/2024
Decision date
5 September 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No