Case 2217786/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Midgely v Link Market Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217786/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Employment Judge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Midgely
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed with effect from 27 November 2023 on grounds of redundancy. The tribunal accepted that the case concerned an unfair dismissal complaint and considered whether redundancy or, alternatively, some other substantial reason was the reason for dismissal, and whether the process was fair under section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found procedural unfairness in the redundancy consultation process. It found that the respondent had not been honest about the underlying reason for the redundancy, that the consultation was not meaningful and genuine, and that there was little, if any, consideration of suitable alternative employment. It did not find a breach of natural justice or procedural unfairness in the appeal.
The unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded on procedural grounds. The tribunal ordered a 50% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award but listed remedy for a further hearing, so the judgment did not determine a monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded on procedural grounds under section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. Remedy was reserved for a further one-day remedies hearing, so no award was made in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey principle
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] ICR 142
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews [2007] IRLR 568
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.