Case 2411513/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Millar v The Oak Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2411513/2021
- Decision date
- 27 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs D Radcliffe, Mr I Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Millar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 23, 24, 25 and 26 January 2023 before Employment Judge Dunlop, Mrs D Radcliffe and Mr I Taylor, the claimant was represented by her husband and the respondent by counsel. By consent, the claimant’s case was amended to include claims for a statutory redundancy payment and an associated contractual redundancy payment, but those claims were not determined at this hearing and were left for the remedy stage if required.
The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It found that, had a fair process been followed, the respondent would have given notice of dismissal no earlier than 2 July 2020, which would have meant that the claimant remained employed beyond her 55th birthday on 18 September 2020. The tribunal also found that, following a fair process, the chance of the claimant remaining in employment beyond the expiry of her notice period was 10%.
The tribunal further found that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the claimant on grounds of age by failing to re-start the redundancy consultation process when the claimant asked it to do so. The compensation due in respect of the successful claims was left to be quantified at a remedy hearing listed for 9 May 2023, unless the parties reached agreement beforehand.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also found that, following a fair process, the respondent would have given notice of dismissal no earlier than 2 July 2020, and that the prospect of the claimant remaining in employment beyond the end of that notice period was 10%. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the claimant on grounds of age by failing to re-start the redundancy consultation process when requested to do so by the claimant. | Upheld | Age | — |
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.