Unfair Dismissal: Claimant Awarded Reduced Compensation for Contributory Conduct
📌 In brief
An employment tribunal ruled that a worker was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation, but also found that the worker contributed to their own dismissal. The employer failed to follow proper disciplinary procedures as outlined by ACAS, leading to an increase in the compensatory award.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must comply with ACAS Code of Conduct on Disciplinary Procedures to avoid an increase in compensatory award.
📖 What the law says
An employer must provide the reason for dismissing an employee and prove that the reason is valid, either by falling within certain categories like capability, qualifications, redundancy, or contravention of a duty or restriction. The fairness of the dismissal also depends on whether the employer acted reasonably in the circumstances, considering the size and resources of the employer's business.
The compensatory award should be an amount that the tribunal deems fair and equitable, taking into account the losses suffered by the employee due to the dismissal, including reasonable expenses and lost benefits. The tribunal must consider the duty of the employee to mitigate their losses and disregard any pressure exerted through industrial action when assessing the employer's actions.
If an employer fails to comply with a relevant code of practice, such as the ACAS Code of Conduct on Disciplinary Procedures, and the failure is deemed unreasonable, the employment tribunal can increase the award to the employee by up to 25% if it considers it just and equitable.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation, but reductions were made for contributory conduct.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by their employer, John Lewis Plc. The compensatory award was reduced due to contributory conduct but increased for the employer's failure to comply with ACAS Code of Conduct on Disciplinary Procedures.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Number: 6009627/2025
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
[COMPANY]
On:
8, 9 and 10 April 2026
Before:
Employment Judge Gardiner
Representation Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:- 1. The Claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996.
2. A reduction of 25% shall be made to the basic award under Section 122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 on the basis that it would be just and equitable to do so given the Claimant’s contributory conduct.
3. A reduction of 25% shall be made to the compensatory award under Section 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996 on the basis that the dismissal was contributed to by actions of the Claimant.
4. An increase of 10% shall be made to the compensatory award under Section 207A(2) [NAME] on the basis that the Respondent has failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Conduct on Disciplinary Procedures, that failure was unreasonable, and it would be just and equitable in all the circumstances to make an increase of 10%.
5. The Claimant is entitled to the sum of £6825 by way of basic award, being 13 x £700 = £9100 reduced by 25%.
Case Number: 6009627/2026
2 6. The Claimant is entitled to the sum of £18,719.55 by way of compensatory award, calculated as follows: a. Loss of net basic earnings
£18,880 (32 weeks at £590) b. Loss of pension
£1680.32 (8.9% x £18,880) c. Loss of overtime
£1604.04 (£74.91 x 32 x 68%) d. Loss of statutory rights
£500 e. Total (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) =
£22,690.36 f. Reduce total at (e) by 25% for contributory conduct =
£17,017.77 g. Increase total at (f) by 10% for failure to comply with ACAS Code =
£18,719.55 7. In accordance with Regulation 4(3) of the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996: a. The monetary award is £18,719.55. b. The amount of the prescribed element is £18,880 + £1,604.04 = £20,484.04 x 75% = £15,363.03. c. The dates of the period to which the prescribed element is attributable is from 20 December 2024 to 2 August 2025. d. The amount by which the monetary award exceeds the prescribed element is £18,719.55 - £15,363.03 = £3,356.52.
Employment Judge Gardiner
Dated: 10 April 2026
Note 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.
Public access to employment tribunal decisions All judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment- tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules in Favour of Constructive Unfair Dismissal and Bo…
- Employment Tribunal Worker Wins Unlawful Deductions and Holiday Pay Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Disabled Worker Wins Compensation Against Employer for Discrimination and U…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Upholds Disabled Worker's Discrimination Claims Against…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Against Unauthorised Wage Deductions
- Employment Tribunal Unauthorised Wage Deductions: Claimant Wins Compensation at Employment Trib…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Ordered to Pay Compensation for Unauthorised Wage Deductions and B…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Wrongful Dismissal Due to Unpaid Notice Pay
- Employment Tribunal Claimant wins case over unauthorised wage cuts and unpaid holiday
- Employment Tribunal Claimant Successfully Proves Employee Status for Notice and Redundancy Pay
- Employment Tribunal Employer Ordered to Pay Unlawful Wage Deduction
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
- Employer must comply with ACAS Code of Conduct on Disciplinary Procedures.
- Employer must pay notice period wages if termination occurs without proper notice.
- Employer must consider the reality of a working relationship when determining employment status.
- Employer must not make unlawful deductions from worker's wages under Employment Rights Act 1996.
- Employer must comply with Working Time Regulations for statutory annual leave payments.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation, but reductions were made for contributory conduct.
Who was involved?
A worker (the claimant) and their employer (John Lewis Plc).
How did the court decide, and why?
The tribunal found that while the dismissal was unfair, it also considered the claimant's contributory conduct and the employer's failure to follow proper procedures.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 98, 122(2), and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as well as Section 207A(2) of the Trade Union & Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer's failure to comply with ACAS Code of Conduct on Disciplinary Procedures led to an increase in the compensatory award.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For, as the claimant was awarded compensation despite reductions due to contributory conduct.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone unfairly dismissed may still receive compensation if they contributed to their own dismissal and the employer followed proper procedures.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The ACAS Code of Conduct on Disciplinary Procedures was crucial in determining the compensatory award.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from employment tribunals 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 advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.