Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

This case concerns the application of the Polkey rule to cases of unfair dismissal. The Polkey rule deals with the issue of whether an employee would have been dismissed anyway but for the procedural failings in their dismissal (rendering it unfair).

The facts in Cartwright v Kings College London

Mr Cartwright (“the Claimant”) commenced employment with Kings College London (“the Respondent”) in 2000 and by 2005 he had achieved the status of a permanent employee teaching rehabilitation in the Physiotherapy department.

On 12 June 2007 the Claimant was informed that there was a possibility that his post may become redundant as there was a lack of student interest in a proposed new teaching course.

The Claimant was in fact made redundant on 31 January 2008. The Claimant subsequently submitted a complaint of unfair redundancy dismissal at the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant had been fairly dismissed. The Court of Appeal overturned this finding on the ground of procedural fairness alone and remitted the matter to the Employment Tribunal for remedy to be dealt with.

The Tribunal, considering the remitted issue of remedy, concluded that it would be appropriate to award the Claimant a sum that would cover the extended period that it would have taken to deal with his claim in a procedurally fair manner. The Tribunal considered that a period of two weeks was an appropriate period and the Claimant was therefore awarded two weeks’ pay.

The law relating to unfair dismissal and Polkey reductions

Employees have, under s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the right not to be unfairly dismissed from their employment. Broadly, there are two elements to the fairness of a dismissal – the substantive fairness and the procedural fairness. The substantive fairness of a dismissal relates to whether the employer has made a decision which was within the range of reasonable responses in dismissing the employee. The procedural fairness of a dismissal relates to whether the dismissal has been carried out in a procedurally fair manner (i.e. whether the dismissal is consistent with similar past decisions, whether the employee has been given an opportunity to appeal etc.).

Should the employee succeed in showing liability for unfair dismissal (i.e. that the dismissal was substantially and/or procedurally unfair) then they are entitled to be awarded compensation for the losses that they’ve sustained as a result. However, the employee’s compensation can be reduced through a variety of mechanisms, one of these being the application of the Polkey rule.

The Polkey rule emanates from the case of Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd and states, broadly, that if a dismissal is procedurally unfair but not substantively unfair then the compensatory award should be reduced by the appropriate percentage to reflect the possibility that the employee would have been dismissed but for the procedural unfairness. There are a number of ways that the Employment Tribunal can apply such a reduction – either to 100% of the compensatory award or a lower percentage. The Employment Tribunal could also choose to award the employee compensation for the extra period it would have taken to have carried out a fair procedure.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Cartwright v Kings College London

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the Polkey reduction that the Employment Tribunal had applied, considering that the Employment Tribunal had made no error of law.

Our specialist employment lawyers’ thoughts on Cartwright v Kings College London

This case shows that Claimants should be aware that awards of compensation in the Employment Tribunal can be substantially reduced through a number of means, such as contributory fault, a failure to mitigate or (as in this case) the application of the Polkey rule.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog.

Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.52 Average

21 Reviews

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 1 month ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 1 month ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 1 month ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 2 months ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 2 months ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 2 months ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 2 months ago

Keith

Quick fast professional service.

Posted 2 months ago

Michael

"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

"Excellent service, getting back to you promptly giving you very good advice."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

I found Chris Hadrill to be an excellent help, he is very knowledgeable and gives good ,concise ,strategic advice .He makes himself readily accessible when you need him.I would personally highly recommend him.

Posted 2 months ago

Christine

Professional, efficient and reliable service provided. I strongly recommend them and I would use this service again.

Posted 2 months ago