Case 1602332/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Harding v Waverley Court Consulting Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602332/2020
- Decision date
- 14 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Harding
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr B Harding, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Waverley Court Consulting Ltd. The case was heard by Employment Judge R F Powell at Cardiff by CVP on 30 September and 1 October 2021, with reasons given at the hearing and judgment dated 5 October 2021.
The tribunal found that the principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal was redundancy, which was a potentially fair reason for the purposes of section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, it also found that the dismissal was unreasonable for the purposes of section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment equivalent to the agreed value of the basic award, and therefore made no order for a basic award. It also found that the respondent had proved the claimant would have been fairly dismissed on his effective date of termination in any event, so no compensatory award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that redundancy was the principal reason for dismissal under section 98(2) ERA 1996, but the dismissal was unreasonable under section 98(4) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) 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.