Case 2501886/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Eves v International House Newcastle Limited Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501886/2020
- Decision date
- 5 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Eves
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Eves was employed as a Senior Teacher and Examinations Co-ordinator from 22 March 2011 until 28 August 2020, when her employment ended following a redundancy process begun during the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic. The tribunal accepted that the respondent's business was seriously affected and that a number of redundancies were made, but found that the claimant had been told in general terms that her job was at risk without any adequate individual consultation, that the dismissal email did not set out the actual selection criteria, and that the respondent had not shown a reasonable selection decision or reasonable steps to find suitable alternative employment.
The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant did not contribute to her dismissal, but that there was a 50% chance she would have been fairly dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been used, having regard to the respondent's higher payroll costs, her lack of the Delta qualification, and her lesser experience in teacher training and young learners' courses. Her loss of earnings from 28 August 2020 to 2 February 2021 was calculated at £3,881 before the 50% reduction, producing a compensatory award of £1,940.50, and a further £250 was awarded for future loss of statutory rights, making a total award of £2,190.50.
The tribunal made no basic award because the reason for dismissal was redundancy and the claimant had received the correct redundancy pay. It applied the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 because the claimant had claimed Universal Credit during the protected period of 28 August 2020 to 2 February 2021; the prescribed element was £1,940.50 and the balance was £250.00. The breach of contract claim about pension contributions was withdrawn by consent, and the holiday pay claim failed because the tribunal found the respondent had given sufficient notice under regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and that the 15 days' holiday had been taken and paid during the notice period.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for redundancy. The tribunal found a 50% chance she would have been fairly dismissed anyway, so compensation was reduced by 50%. No basic award was payable because redundancy pay had been received. | Upheld | — | £2,191 |
| Breach of contract | Claim concerned pension contributions. It was dismissed on withdrawal by consent after the claimant confirmed she had been paid what was due. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim concerned non-payment of 15 days' holiday accrued during the notice period. The tribunal held the respondent gave sufficient notice under regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and that the leave had been taken and paid for during the notice period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,191
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,191
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- regulation 15 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.
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.