Case 1805172/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Mathieson v Liabilities Limited trading as MI Adjusting — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805172/2020
- Decision date
- 10 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Mathieson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr C Mathieson, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Liabilities Limited trading as MI Adjusting. The tribunal found that the employment ended when Mrs Mathieson's letter of 14 July 2020 made clear that if the claimant did not attend the meeting on 20 July his employment would be deemed terminated. Although the letter purported to give retrospective effect, the tribunal treated the dismissal as occurring when the claimant did not attend the 20 July meeting. The claim was therefore not premature and the tribunal went on to assess the reason for dismissal and fairness under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the stated reason for dismissal was to pressure the claimant into face-to-face dialogue about the breakdown in the working relationship, which did not fall within section 98 ERA 1996. The dismissal took effect when the 14 July 2020 letter was not followed by the claimant's attendance at the 20 July meeting. | Upheld | — | £915 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £915
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £915
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 98(1)(b) ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- section 122(2) ERA 1996
- section 123(6) ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- section 119 ERA 1996
- section 86 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.