Mr G Varga Mrs E Varga Homa v Three Pillars Contractors Limited Rufford Court Limited — 2021

The first claimant, a plumber/handyman and the only employee of the first respondent, was placed at risk of redundancy in September 2019 after Ms S Bhogaita decided to step back from project work for personal and family reasons. The tribunal accepted that the respondent's construction work was mainly project-based, that the final substantive project ended in January 2020, and that there was no continuing requirement for the first claimant to carry out work of a particular kind. On that basis, his unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. His indirect race discrimination claim was withdrawn immediately before he gave oral evidence.

The second claimant had worked first as a receptionist and later as a manager at Rufford Court. The tribunal accepted that the bed and breakfast business ceased, that the lease was surrendered, and that the property was to be used as emergency housing for Nottingham City Council. It also accepted that the respondent's financial position had deteriorated, with net assets of £8,948 in 2018 becoming a net liability of £13,959 in 2019. The tribunal found there was no further requirement for the second claimant's role and dismissed her unfair dismissal claim.

On the victimisation claim, the tribunal accepted that the second claimant had done a protected act by presenting a maternity and pregnancy discrimination complaint received by the second respondent around 4 September 2019. It found, however, that the decision to dismiss her followed the redundancy situation already under way and was not because she had brought that complaint. The tribunal referred to section 139 ERA 1996, section 98(2)(c) and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the section 27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation test, and the band of reasonable responses when assessing fairness.