Case 1804873/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Jacomb v John Lund Prospect Estates Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804873/2020
- Decision date
- 14 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Jacomb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent dismissed Mrs J Jacomb with an effective date of termination of 14 August 2020 and that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. It also found that the dismissal was unfair, so the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that the respondent had made a statutory redundancy payment to the claimant on or around 28 August 2020. Applying section 122(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it reduced the basic award by the amount of that payment so that no basic award was ordered.
The tribunal also found that, had a fair procedure been followed, the claimant would in any event have been dismissed for redundancy on or around 14 August 2020. For that reason, applying section 123(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it held that it was not just and equitable to make a compensatory award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that Mrs J Jacomb was dismissed with an effective date of termination of 14 August 2020 and that the reason was redundancy. It upheld the unfair dismissal complaint, but the remedy findings meant no monetary award was ordered. | 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- section 122(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(1) Employment Rights Act 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.