Cases6020377/2024

Claimant v Mitie Limited

17 June 2025Before Employment Judge KM RossManchesterremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed for procedural reasons under sections 95 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent failed to follow a fair procedure in conducting the dismissal. However, the substantive reason for dismissal was sound.

Facts

Mr Lawson was dismissed by Mitie Ltd following a flawed procedure. The tribunal heard evidence over two days via video hearing. The claimant represented himself while the respondent was represented by counsel. The dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair but the claimant's conduct contributed significantly to the situation.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair due to procedural failings, but applied a 100% Polkey reduction finding the claimant would inevitably have been fairly dismissed had proper procedure been followed. Alternatively, the tribunal reduced both basic and compensatory awards to nil due to 100% contributory fault arising from the claimant's blameworthy conduct.

Practical note

Even where unfair dismissal is established on procedural grounds, a tribunal can reduce compensation to nil through either 100% Polkey reduction or 100% contributory fault where the employee's conduct made dismissal inevitable.

Adjustments

Polkey reduction100%

100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed, resulting in nil compensation

Contributory fault100%

Tribunal found claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct and reduced both compensatory and basic awards by 100% on grounds of just and equitable

Legal authorities cited

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

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.95ERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
6020377/2024
Decision date
17 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No