Integrity Stainless and Alloy Ltd

Case Summary

Both claimants' claims of unfair dismissal succeeded. The first claimant's awards were reduced by 100% under Polkey and further by 80% for contributory conduct, resulting in no compensation. The second claimant received a settlement payment of £3,349.78 by consent, with no basic award due to prior statutory redundancy payment.

Both claimants' unfair dismissal claims succeeded. However, the first claimant's awards were eliminated by a 100% Polkey reduction (indicating the dismissal would have occurred anyway) combined with an 80% reduction for contributory conduct. The second claimant received a consensual settlement of £3,349.78 with no basic award as she had already received a statutory redundancy payment.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Unfair dismissal - first claimant
• •Unfair dismissal - second claimant
• •Polkey reduction to basic and compensatory awards
• •Contributory conduct reduction
• •ACAS Code enhancement
• •Statutory redundancy payment

6020717/2025 1 of 3 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS FINAL HEARING Claimants: Mr N Buxton [First Claimant] Mrs M Buxton [Second Claimant] Respondent: Integrity Stainless and Alloy Ltd Heard at: Leeds Employment Tribunal (by remote video) On: 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 May 2026 Before: Employment Judge Stephen Shore Appearances For the claimants: Mr S Walker, Solicitor For the respondent: Dr J Bickford Smith, Counsel JUDGMENT AND REASONS ON LIABILITY JUDGMENT 1. The first claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal succeeds. 6020717/2025 2 of 3 2. The first claimant’s basic and compensatory awards will be reduced by 100% under the principle in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142. 3. The first claimant’s compensation will be reduced by 80% for contributory conduct. 4. There is no enhancement of compensation for breach of the ACAS Code of Conduct as the reason for dismissal was not conduct. 5. The second claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal succeeds. 6. No basic award is payable to the second claimant, as she received a statutory redundancy payment. 7. The second claimant’s compensatory award will be reduced by 80% under the principle in Polkey. 8. There is no enhancement of compensation for breach of the ACAS Code because the second claimant was dismissed for the reason of redundancy. 9. No compensation is payable to the first respondent. He withdrew his application for reinstatement as a remedy. 10. By consent, the respondent shall pay Marie Buxton, the second claimant £3,349.78 (gross without deduction of income tax and national insurance). 11. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 do not apply to the settlement agreed between the second claimant and the respondent. 6020717/2025 …