Case 1805735/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Oakforest Joinery Contractors Ltd (sued as Oak Forest Joinery Contractors Ltd) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805735/2021
- Decision date
- 14 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Debra Coleman had been employed since 30 June 2010 as a designer. The tribunal found that Oakforest Joinery Contractors Ltd, sued as Oak Forest Joinery Contractors Ltd, was her employer at the date of termination on 20 July 2021, despite the P45 referring to another trading name. It also found that she had been furloughed from 4 May 2020 and that £544 furlough pay was outstanding at the point of dismissal, although that sum was paid shortly afterwards.
On the reason for dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had not filed an ET3 and could not prove the reason for dismissal. It therefore held the dismissal unfair under section 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal found nothing to show that Crohn's disease or any other related condition caused the dismissal, so the direct disability discrimination claim was dismissed. For redundancy purposes, the tribunal applied the statutory presumption that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy.
The claimant was awarded a redundancy payment of £2,293.50, compensatory award of £2,264.00, and 11 weeks' notice pay of £1,529.00. The tribunal stated that any basic award was subsumed within the redundancy payment entitlement. The disability discrimination claim was dismissed and no injury to feelings award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal applied the statutory presumption of redundancy and declared the claimant entitled to a redundancy payment. Any basic award was said to be subsumed within the redundancy payment entitlement. | Upheld | — | £2,294 |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent had not filed an ET3 and therefore could not prove a reason for dismissal under s.98(1) ERA 1996. The formal order at paragraph 2 awards £2,264.00; the reasons elsewhere contain a separate arithmetic passage that appears to calculate £2,624.00, so the extraction follows the formal order. | Upheld | — | £2,264 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to 11 weeks' notice or pay in lieu under s.86(1) ERA 1996, which had not been given. | Upheld | — | £1,529 |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because there was no evidence of disability or causal connection between the alleged disability and dismissal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,087
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,264
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.163(2) ERA 1996
- s.86(1) 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.
- 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.