Case 2400651/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Webb v Lookers plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400651/2021
- Decision date
- 21 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Webb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Webb was dismissed on 26 September 2020 after Lookers plc decided to close two Vauxhall dealership sites and placed six General Managers in the North West group at risk. The tribunal accepted that there was a redundancy situation and that redundancy was the reason for dismissal. It also found that pooling all six General Managers, rather than only the managers at the closing sites, was within the range of reasonable approaches.
The tribunal found that the selection exercise was not fairly applied. The main differentiating criterion was leadership/management capability, based on Best Companies survey scores. Mr Webb was initially given 5 points when his raw score meant he should have received 10 points. The tribunal found that Mr Talbot's score was increased above the survey outcome because of Mr Eley's subjective view of project work, but that explanation was not given to Mr Webb during the process or appeal.
The tribunal considered that reliance on subjective matters, including an unclear Zoom call point and anonymous bullying allegations that had not been pursued, undermined the fairness of the scoring. It found that the emphasis shifted from objective scoring to subjective judgment when the objective measure advantaged Mr Webb, and concluded that the company had interfered with a scoring process which would otherwise have resulted in Mr Webb being retained.
The unfair dismissal claim was upheld. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair for matters of method and approach, not simply procedure, and applied no discount for the possibility that a fair process would have led to dismissal. It recorded that compensation remained to be determined, with a further half-day remedy hearing to be requested if the parties did not agree remedy within 28 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only judgment. Remedy was not determined; parties were directed to seek a further remedy hearing if agreement was not reached. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd 1982 ICR 156
- Eaton Ltd v King [1995] IRLR 75
- British Aerospace plc v Green [1995] ICR 1006 CA
- Inchcape Retail v Symonds [2009] UKEAT 0316/09
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.