Case 1801103/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Fitzgerald v Credit Karma UK Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1801103/2021
- Decision date
- 16 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Fitzgerald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Fitzgerald brought a claim of unfair dismissal after being dismissed by Credit Karma UK Limited for redundancy arising from the closure of the Leeds office. The tribunal accepted that there was a genuine redundancy situation, that the claimant was warned and consulted both collectively and individually, and that there was no issue about selection pools because the whole office was closing.
The main dispute was whether the respondent failed to offer suitable alternative employment. The claimant said that an engineering manager role had been earmarked for another employee, Mr Perga, and should have been shared during consultation. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that Mr Perga was placed on a management track and had not been offered such a role, and found no evidence that the respondent was hiding or holding back an engineering manager vacancy during the consultation period. It held that the claimant was aware of the vacancies shared in September 2020 and could have expressed interest in any or all of them.
The tribunal also rejected the complaint about the interview process for the Senior Engineering Manager role. It found that the claimant had to apply and be interviewed because that role was two grades above his then position and he did not directly map into it. The tribunal accepted that the interview involved evaluative judgment, that there was a rationale for not appointing him, and that any differences in how interview feedback was recorded did not make the process inherently unfair or unreasonable.
A later Engineering Manager vacancy was advertised in November 2020, before the claimant's termination took effect. The tribunal found that this vacancy was shared and advertised in the usual way, that the claimant was aware of it, and that he made a conscious decision not to apply. Overall, the tribunal held that the respondent's handling of redundancy and alternative employment fell within the band of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal in the context of redundancy was dismissed; the tribunal found the dismissal fair and within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Akzo Coatings plc v Thompson and ors
- Ward and anor v Mahle Filter Systems UK Ltd
- band of reasonable responses
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.