Case 1600679/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Hanson v Sedbury Takeaway Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600679/2021
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Hanson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs R Hanson’s claim for unfair dismissal succeeded. Sitting in Cardiff by CVP on 6 January 2022, Employment Judge R Evans found that Sedbury Takeaway Limited had failed to prove that there was a potentially fair reason for the dismissal. The judgment therefore disposed of liability in the Claimant’s favour on the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal did not determine remedy at that hearing. It listed the case for a separate Remedy Hearing on the first open date after 1 March 2022 and directed the Claimant to provide an updated Schedule of Loss, details of the expiry of her fitness-for-work note, information about efforts to find work after dismissal, and details of later employment and income. The Respondent was given a date to file any reply evidence.
No compensatory or basic award was fixed in this judgment, and no other claims are recorded in the written reasons. The written record also states that oral reasons had been given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claim succeeded because the Respondent failed to prove that there was a potentially fair reason for the dismissal. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and the case was listed for a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.