Case 1804690/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Taylor v Dresler Smith Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1804690/2023
- Decision date
- 29 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley On
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Leeds by CVP before Employment Judge Deeley, heard the liability issues on 27 to 29 February 2024. It upheld the claimant Mr R Taylor’s complaint of unfair (constructive) dismissal under s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and also upheld his wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay against Dresler Smith Limited.
The judgment is a liability decision only. It records that the remedies hearing had been listed for 28 March 2024 and that the parties were required to comply with case management orders in preparation for that hearing. No final monetary award is set out in this judgment.
The tribunal noted that the claimant’s compensatory award was likely to be subject to a 10% uplift because of a breach of the respondent’s obligations under the ACAS Code. It also noted that no final decision had been made on any uplift, referring to the EAT’s guidance in Slade and anor v Biggs and ors 2022 IRLR 216 and the need for a final sense check before deciding any uplift.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant’s complaint of unfair (constructive) dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996 succeeded and was upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant’s complaint of wrongful dismissal, described as notice pay, succeeded and was upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code uplift
- Slade and anor v Biggs and ors 2022 IRLR 216
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.