Case 2409046/2020 · Employment Tribunal
David Ravenscroft v People Dynamix Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2409046/2020
- Decision date
- 9 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Serr Representation
- Venue
- Manchester via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
David Ravenscroft
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that David Ravenscroft’s claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. It also found that his dismissal was wrongful, and recorded that he was entitled to notice pay, with the amount to be determined later.
The tribunal found that Mr Ravenscroft had contributed to his own dismissal and ordered a 10% deduction for contributory fault under sections 122 and 123 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The parties were directed to write to the tribunal by 31 August 2021 to say whether a remedy hearing was needed; if so, the tribunal would list a one-day remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant is entitled to notice pay in an amount to be determined at a remedy stage. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.122 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Employment Rights Act 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.