Employment Tribunal Allows Unfair Dismissal Claim But Rejects Wrongful Dismissal
📌 In brief
In this case, an Employment Tribunal ruled that the employer unfairly dismissed the worker, but also found that the worker contributed significantly to their own dismissal through misconduct. As a result, the compensation awarded was reduced by half.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must follow a fair procedure before dismissing an employee to avoid unfair dismissal claims.
📖 What the law says
Under this section, when determining whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, the employer must prove the reason for the dismissal and show that it falls within certain categories, including the employee's capability or qualifications, their conduct, redundancy, or a breach of duty or restriction. Additionally, the fairness of the dismissal depends on whether the employer acted reasonably in the circumstances, considering the size and resources of the employer's business.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed, but their unfair dismissal complaint succeeded.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed, but their unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The respondent must pay a reduced basic award due to the claimant’s blameworthy conduct.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
Case Number: 6011224/2025 and 6021388/2025
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Reading Employment Tribunal On: 23 & 24 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge George
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. The wrongful dismissal claim (claim for notice pay) is not well founded and is dismissed.
2. The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed.
3. There is a 100 % chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event.
4. The claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct and it is just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award payable to the claimant by 50%.
5. It is just and equitable to reduce the basic award payable to the claimant by 50% because of the claimant’s conduct before the dismissal.
6. The respondent shall pay the claimant the following sums: (a) A basic award of £3,675.00. Note that these are actual the sums payable to the claimant after any deductions or uplifts have been applied. Approved by: Employment Judge George
Case Number: 6011224/2025 and 6021388/2025
2 24 March 2026 Judgment sent to the parties on: 11 May 2026 …………………………………… For the Tribunal:
……………………………………
Notes Summary reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written summary reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written summary reasons are requested, written full reasons may be provided; if they are provided they will be placed online. If written summary reasons are provided, written full reasons will not be provided unless requested by either party by a written request received by the Tribunal within 14 days of the sending of the written summary reasons. If written full reasons are provided, they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the [NAME]. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation- practice-directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Successful Claimant Awarded Costs by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Unauthorised Wage Deductions: Employment Tribunal Decision
- Employment Tribunal Claimant Successfully Proves Unfair Dismissal but Sees Reduced Awards
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Allows Unfair Dismissal Case Due to Administrative Erro…
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- An employer must act reasonably and follow a fair procedure before dismissing an employee
- An employment tribunal may waive compliance with prescribed methods for submitting claims if it is just and equitable in the circumstances
- An employer must not dismiss an employee without a fair reason and proper procedure
- An employer must ensure that they cover reasonable legal costs when a claimant successfully pursues an employment tribunal case
- An employer may dismiss an employee for misconduct, but the compensation is reduced if the employee contributed to their own dismissal.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- An employee must have at least two years' continuous employment to bring a claim for unfair dismissal or redundancy payment under the Employment Rights Act 1996
- A claimant's harassment allegation must have a reasonable prospect of success to be heard by an employment tribunal
- An employer is not liable to provide the benefits claimed if they are not substantiated by evidence or applicable law.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint succeeded, but their wrongful dismissal claim failed.
Who was involved?
A worker and their employer, John Lewis plc.
How did the court decide, and why?
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but also that the worker's conduct contributed to it.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was applied.
What argument mattered most?
The claimant’s blameworthy conduct before dismissal was a key factor in reducing their compensation.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
It was partly for and partly against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone unfairly dismissed may still receive reduced compensation if they contributed to their own dismissal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tribunal considered evidence of the worker's conduct leading up to and during the dismissal process.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but only within strict time limits and with permission from the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor.