Case 1602407/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. D. Lindley (C1) Mrs. A. Lindley (C2) v SED Conveyors Ltd, including when trading as RTI Conveyors and as RTI Western and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602407/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr. D. Lindley (C1) Mrs. A. Lindley (C2)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 15 January 2021 the tribunal gave a Rule 21 liability judgment. It held that Mr D. Lindley's claims against SED Conveyors Ltd (R1) were well-founded: he was unfairly dismissed on 22 June 2020; that dismissal was also automatically unfair because the reason was protected disclosures; R1 subjected him to detriments for making those disclosures; the dismissal was alternatively automatically unfair because he alleged infringement of a relevant statutory right; R1 made unauthorised deductions from his wages; R1 breached his contract in relation to notice of termination; R1 breached his contract as claimed in paragraph 61 of his particulars of claim; and R1 failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
The tribunal made the same findings in relation to Mrs A. Lindley against R1, with the additional finding that R1 directly discriminated against her because of the protected characteristic of marriage by treating her as set out in paragraphs 61-62 of her particulars of claim. It also held that she was unfairly dismissed on 21 July 2020, that the dismissal was automatically unfair because she made protected disclosures, that R1 subjected her to detriments for those disclosures, that the dismissal was alternatively automatically unfair because she alleged infringement of a relevant statutory right, that R1 made unauthorised deductions from her wages, that R1 breached her contract in relation to notice of termination, that R1 breached her contract as claimed in paragraph 64, and that R1 failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
The claims against R2 were stayed until 30 June 2021 and were to be dismissed upon deemed withdrawal unless a party applied by 4.00pm on that date to lift the stay. The judgment did not assess the monetary award; it directed that the sum payable by R1 be determined at a remedy hearing, to be listed by video before an Employment Judge sitting alone.
Claims and outcomes
17 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | C1; unfairly dismissed by R1 on 22 June 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | C1; dismissal found automatically unfair because the reason was protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | C1; detriments pleaded in paragraph 56 on the ground of protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | C1; alternative automatic unfair dismissal because he alleged infringement of a relevant statutory right (paragraph 57). | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | C1; unauthorised deductions from wages as claimed in paragraph 61. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | C1; breach of contract as to notice of termination. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | C1; further breach of contract claim pleaded in paragraph 61. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.