At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE A WILKIE QC
MR D CHADWICK
MR D NORMAN
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR DANIEL BARNETT (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Samuel Phillips & Co Solicitors Gibbs Chambers 52 Westgate Road Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 5XU |
For the Respondent | MR NIGEL HUNTINGTON (of Counsel) Instructed by: Peninsula Business Services Ltd Riverside New Bailey Street Manchester M3 5PB |
JUDGE A WILKIE QC
"The Tribunal made a "Polkey" deduction having found there to be a 95% certainty that the Applicant would have been dismissed in any event, notwithstanding that a full investigation had been carried out."
On top of that, that the Tribunal then made a 90% deduction from the balance, being for 90% contribution. That left a compensatory award of £23.18 from a start figure of £4,620.76. There is nowhere any statement by the Tribunal that in applying the 90% contributory fault deduction to the sum netted down, after the Polkey deduction, that they had any regard at all to the cumulative effect of these two deductions, having regard to their statutory duty to make an award that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.
"…….due to the applicant's admission at the disciplinary hearing that she knew that what she was doing was wrong and the fact that there had been large scale abuse over many weeks. Also the Tribunal took into account the fact that after the dismissal, the applicant had made no effort to help herself or to follow up the letter sent to the respondent requesting an appeal hearing."