Case 2409129/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Second Claimant: Ms Georgina Glendinning Ms Kellie Haughan v Direct Rail Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2409129/2023
- Decision date
- 16 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy
- Venue
- Manchester in person
- Panel members
- Mrs S Humphreys, Mr I Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Second Claimant: Ms Georgina Glendinning Ms Kellie Haughan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held unanimously that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and that both claimants, Ms Georgina Glendinning and Ms Kellie Haughan, were unfairly dismissed. The judgment records no reduction for Polkey and no finding that either claimant caused or contributed to dismissal by blameworthy conduct.
The complaint of entitlement to a redundancy payment was withdrawn by consent. The decision therefore records liability findings only, with remedy left for a later hearing.
A remedy hearing was listed for 3 December 2025 by CVP. The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint well-founded and held that both the first and second claimants were unfairly dismissed. It recorded that there was no Polkey reduction and no finding that the claimants caused or contributed to their dismissals by blameworthy conduct. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The complaint of entitlement to a redundancy payment was withdrawn by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey reduction
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.