Employment Tribunal Partially Allows Unfair Dismissal Claim
📌 In brief
A worker's unfair dismissal case against an NHS trust was partially successful as the employer did not follow proper procedures when ending their fixed-term contract during a recruitment freeze. However, the compensation was significantly reduced because it was likely the worker would have been dismissed anyway under any circumstances.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must act reasonably in all circumstances when treating some other substantial reason as sufficient for dismissal.
📖 What the law says
Under this section, an employer must provide the reason for dismissal and prove that the reason falls within certain categories or is a substantial reason justifying the dismissal. Additionally, the employer must act reasonably in treating the reason as sufficient for dismissal, considering the circumstances including the size and resources of the employer's business.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was partially successful due to procedural failings by the respondent, but reduced compensation due to a high likelihood of dismissal anyway.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant was dismissed due to the expiry of a fixed-term contract during a recruitment freeze. The Tribunal found procedural failings by the respondent but also that there was a high likelihood of dismissal regardless, leading to reduced compensation.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
Case Number: 6031742/2025
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
Heard at:
East London Tribunal Hearing Centre
On:
20 and 21 May 2026
Before:
Employment Judge Smyth
Representation For the Claimant: [redacted]
For the Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant was dismissed on 30 June 2025 by reason of the expiry and non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.
2. The reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely the Respondent’s recruitment freeze.
3. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that reason as sufficient to dismiss the Claimant, by reason of procedural failings. The complaint of unfair dismissal is therefore well-founded.
4. The Tribunal further finds, in accordance with Polkey v [COMPANY] [1987] UKHL 8, that there was a 90% chance that the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed. The compensatory award is therefore reduced by 90%.
5. The Tribunal finds that the Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss and disallows any claim for future loss.
6. The parties agreed the appropriate figures for remedy, subject to the Tribunal’s findings.
7. The Tribunal makes the following award: (i) Basic Award: £1,490.50
Case Number: 6031742/2025
2
(ii) Compensatory Award (after [NAME] reduction): £2,025.58
8. The total award is £3,516.08.
Approved by: Employment Judge K Smyth Dated: 21 May 2026
Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written 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 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 here:
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 Disability Discrimination Claim Allowed Despite Non-Compliance
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Decision on Time Limits for Discrimination Claims
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules on Age Discrimination and Disability Adjustments
- Employment Tribunal Employer Must Compensate for Unauthorised Wages, Not Pension Failures
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Allows Unfair Dismissal Claim But Rejects Wrongful Dism…
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 follow a fair procedure before dismissing an employee to avoid unfair dismissal claims., An employer must make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees to avoid discriminatory constructive dismissal., An Employment Tribunal may grant relief from sanctions and allow a claim to proceed if it is in the interests of justice., An employer must compensate an employee for unauthorised wage deductions but is not liable under employment tribunals for failing to make pension contributions.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A claimant's harassment allegation must have a reasonable prospect of success to be heard by an employment tribunal., A claimant must bring their employment tribunal claims within the prescribed time limits to avoid dismissal or striking out.
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 case was partially successful due to procedural failings by the employer.
Who was involved?
A worker and their NHS employer.
How did the court decide, and why?
The Tribunal found that while there were procedural issues, it was likely the claimant would have been dismissed anyway.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The likelihood of dismissal regardless of procedure.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For, but with significant reduction in compensation.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
They may win an unfair dismissal claim if there are procedural issues, but compensation could be reduced if dismissal was likely anyway.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Details of the recruitment freeze and contract expiry.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions can often be appealed to an 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.