Case 2402284/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Dinnes - Solicitor For the v Mr L Ashwood - Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402284/2020
- Decision date
- 3 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Dinnes - Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Singleton's ordinary unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and that he was entitled to a remedy. It found that he would have remained in employment until 31 December 2020, and that on that date there was a 75% chance that he would have been fairly dismissed on notice or with pay in lieu of notice. The tribunal said there would be an appropriate deduction from any remedy to reflect that finding.
The tribunal also granted leave to amend so that the claimant could advance a breach of contract claim, but it ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim. Its reason was that the claim neither arose nor was outstanding on termination of employment, as required by Article 3(c) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. A remedy hearing was listed for 6 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under sections 94/98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found well founded. The tribunal later held the claimant would have remained employed until 31 December 2020, when there was a 75% chance of fair dismissal on notice or with pay in lieu of notice, and said an appropriate deduction would be made from remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal granted leave to amend to plead breach of contract, but held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because it neither arose nor was outstanding on termination, as required by Article 3(c) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 94/98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 3(c) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.