Case 2418437/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Smith v Seddon Construction Limited — 2021

Case reference: 2418437/2020
Decision date: 23 August 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Peck

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Smith

Respondent

Seddon Construction Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr D Smith was employed as a Design Manager in the respondent’s North-West Construction business unit from 30 November 2015, on a gross annual salary of £57,000. In May 2020 the respondent announced proposed workforce changes because of the covid-19 pandemic, downturn in work and restructure, and the claimant’s role was placed at risk of redundancy. The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew it did not require six Design Managers in the Construction business unit going forward.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The claimant alleged that his redundancy dismissal was unfair because he should have been offered the Design Manager, Property Services role, the selection process was unfair, and alternatives to redundancy including furlough were not properly considered. The tribunal found the respondent had a fair redundancy reason, had adequately consulted, and that the decision not to appoint him to the Property Services role was within the range of reasonable responses despite a procedural flaw in not giving the job description in advance.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.