Case 2401048/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Szalata v I P Fencing Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401048/2021
- Decision date
- 29 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Szalata
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Szalata’s claims were heard by Employment Judge Ross at Manchester by CVP on 9 September 2021 and 18 October 2021. The tribunal held that her unfair dismissal claim under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded because the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy and that the effective date of termination was 30 September 2020.
Although the unfair dismissal claim succeeded, the tribunal applied Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd and made a nil award for compensation. It found that it was 100% inevitable the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy by 30 September 2020 in any event if the respondent had followed a fair procedure. No other unfair dismissal remedy was identified in the judgment.
The claimant’s claim for unpaid wages for the period 30 September 2020 to 15 December 2020 was found not well-founded and failed. Her claim for a payment in lieu of notice also failed as not well-founded. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found the reason for dismissal was redundancy and the effective date of termination was 30 September 2020. It applied Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd and held there was a nil award for compensation because it was 100% inevitable the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy by 30 September 2020 in any event if a fair procedure had been followed. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid wages for the period 30 September 2020 to 15 December 2020 was found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for a payment in lieu of notice was found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 95 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
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.