Case 2401583/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Davies v DL Insurance Services plc & Others — 2018
- Case reference
- 2401583/2017
- Decision date
- 9 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr R Cunningham, Dr L Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Davies was an Area Manager and the respondent carried out a redundancy exercise in 2016 to reduce the number of Area Managers from four to three. The tribunal accepted that there was a redundancy situation, but found that the way the pool was formed was unfair. Christine Hutchin was taken out of the pool on geographical grounds, Chris Leech was later removed because he was acting up as National Manager, and the final comparison was left between Mr Davies and Matthew Lake.
The tribunal found that the eventual selection between Mr Davies and Mr Lake was not handled fairly or transparently. Mr Chiappino changed from the initially described criteria, used a number of largely subjective factors, decided who won each category without scoring the candidates, and relied on Mike Brown's comments without giving the men an opportunity to respond. It also found that the respondent did not follow its redundancy policy requirement to consult with ERB representatives and that the claimant was not given the scores at the consultation stage. For those reasons the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
The direct sex discrimination claim failed. The tribunal accepted that Ms Hutchin had been excluded from the pool, but held that the reason was her geographical location and the structure of the reorganisation, not her sex. It found no facts from which it could conclude that sex was the reason for the difference in treatment, and said it reached the same conclusion as Employment Judge Horne had in relation to the deposit order. The case was listed for a later remedy hearing to deal with re-engagement, Polkey, the chance that Mr Davies would have been dismissed anyway, and any costs or deposit issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that there was a redundancy situation, but the selection pool was limited unfairly, the later scoring process was subjective and not transparent, the respondent did not follow its redundancy policy consultation requirements with ERB representatives, and the dismissal was therefore unfair. Remedy, including Polkey and re-engagement, was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant compared himself with Ms Hutchin, but the tribunal found her exclusion from the pool was based on geographical location and alignment to the South East in the new structure, not because she was a woman. It found no facts from which sex could be inferred as the reason for the difference in treatment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited [1998] ICR 142
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.