Case 2400536/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Skinner v Autosparx Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400536/2022
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms V Worthington, Mr D Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Skinner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs L Skinner's Part X unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal found that Autosparx Limited had failed to prove that she was dismissed as part of a genuine redundancy exercise, and therefore had not satisfied the tribunal that the dismissal was for a fair reason in accordance with s.98(2) ERA 1996. The tribunal ordered a compensatory award of a net £1,921.85. No basic award was due because the claimant had already received a redundancy payment in the same amount as the basic award that would otherwise have been payable.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claims under ss.100(1) and 101A(1) ERA 1996 were dismissed as unfounded. Her direct disability discrimination claim was also dismissed.
The claimant withdrew, with her consent recorded at the hearing, the unlawful deduction from wages claims relating to 8 hours' holiday pay, untaken time off in lieu, and 6 weeks' notice pay. Her separate claim for unpaid wages relating to payments made by the respondent in connection with her private motor car was dismissed as unfounded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Part X claim succeeded; the tribunal found the respondent failed to prove that the claimant was dismissed as part of a genuine redundancy exercise and therefore failed to show a fair reason under s.98(2) ERA 1996. The compensatory award was stated to be net and recoupment regulations did not apply because the claimant was not in receipt of state benefits. | Upheld | — | £1,922 |
| Unfair dismissal | Claims under ss.100(1) and 101A(1) ERA 1996 were found unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims relating to 8 hours' holiday pay, untaken time off in lieu, and 6 weeks' notice pay were withdrawn with the claimant's consent at the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages relating to payments made by the respondent in relation to the claimant's private motor car was dismissed as unfounded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,922
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,922
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- Part X ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.100(1) ERA 1996
- s.101A(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.
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.