Case 2300140/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr S Bellim, solicitor — 2017
- Case reference
- 2300140/2018
- Decision date
- 17 November 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms S Pendle, Ms S Boyce
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent’s 2016-2017 finance restructure created a redundancy situation. It accepted that the old accountant roles were being replaced by finance business partner roles requiring different and broader skills, including a new “critical friend” relationship with budget holders, and that the respondent needed to make savings of £90,000.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Redundancy dismissal following the 2016-2017 finance restructure and selection for the finance business partner roles. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim concerning the alleged restriction on working additional hours and flexi leave between November 2016 and March 2017. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments concerning alleged PCPs in the redeployment process, including core hours and full-time requirements. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Jennings v Barts and the London NHS Trust
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
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.