Case 1401362/2022 · Employment Tribunal
J Hague, husband of the Claimant For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401362/2022
- Decision date
- 6 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
1 namedClaimant
J Hague, husband of the Claimant For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had worked for the respondent as a skilled computer programmer for around 20 years. In 2021 the respondent reoriented its IT function away from bespoke in-house development towards a low code / no code approach, with configuration of existing or commercially available products to be used first and bespoke building to be used only where necessary. The tribunal found that this was more than an evolution of the claimant's role: it reduced the respondent's need for work of the kind she had been doing, namely designing, writing, testing and implementing whole programs, and so created a redundancy situation.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the proposed role in the new structure was a suitable alternative. It found that the new work involved a different and lesser mix of activity, focused on configuring and integrating bought-in systems rather than creating bespoke software from scratch, and that the claimant's senior coding work would be substantially reduced. The tribunal also found that the claimant reasonably objected to being moved into a role that would deskill her, and that she resigned after the grievance outcome meeting; that resignation was treated as the final straw and amounted to constructive dismissal.
The dismissal was held to be unfair because the respondent failed to treat the reorganisation as a redundancy situation and instead sought to impose substantial changes to the claimant's contractual role. The tribunal also found that the grievance handling did not cure that breach. It recorded that the claimant was entitled to pay in lieu of notice, but it did not quantify any contractual award at liability stage.
The statutory redundancy payment claim was dismissed because the claimant was a civil servant and s.159 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 excluded her from such a payment. The tribunal noted that its factual findings might be relevant to a Civil Service Compensation Scheme application, but it had no jurisdiction to determine that scheme. For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a basic award and a compensatory award, and it relisted the matter for a one-day remedy hearing to assess quantum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the claimant was entitled to pay in lieu of notice. No contractual sum was quantified in this liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant was a civil servant and was therefore not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment by reason of s.159 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It noted that findings of fact might be relevant to any Civil Service Compensation Scheme application, but that scheme was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was found to have been constructively unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal held that the low/no-code reorganisation diminished the respondent's need for skilled bespoke programmers, that the proposed new role was not suitable alternative employment, and that the grievance process formed part of the fundamental breach. A basic award and compensatory award were ordered, with quantum to be dealt with at a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Parekh v LB of Brent
- s.159 ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.