Claimant v Mr W Wiggett
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair. However, applying the Polkey principle, the tribunal concluded that if a fair procedure had been followed, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed on the same date (24 January 2024). The respondent had substantive grounds for dismissal but failed to follow proper procedure.
Facts
Mr Downs was dismissed by his employer Mr Wiggett on 24 January 2024. The claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment. The dismissal was challenged as procedurally unfair. The hearing took place over two days via video before Employment Judge Harrison, with the claimant represented by counsel and the respondent appearing in person.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair due to procedural defects. However, applying Polkey, the tribunal determined that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed on the same date if proper procedure had been followed. A minimal compensatory award of £1,524.59 was agreed by consent, with no basic award payable as redundancy had already been paid.
Practical note
Even where a dismissal is found procedurally unfair, a 100% Polkey reduction can limit compensation to procedural losses only if the tribunal finds dismissal was inevitable regardless of procedure.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
The tribunal found that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed, with employment ending on 24 January 2024 (the actual dismissal date). This resulted in no loss of earnings beyond the actual dismissal date.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 3302743/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Mr W Wiggett
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- self
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister