Alessandro Iannicelli v University of Nottingham — 2025

The tribunal found that the only claim pursued was for a redundancy payment. It rejected the respondent's limitation argument, holding that the claimant had preserved his right under section 164 ERA 1996 by challenging the amount of the payment in writing within six months of his redundancy. Applying Bentley Engineering Co Ltd v Crown and Miller, the tribunal held that once that step had been taken, the tribunal claim could be brought later.

On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant had worked regularly for the respondent from September 2000 but had not proved that he was an employee during the period up to 31 October 2007. Applying Ready Mixed Concrete, the tribunal was not satisfied there was evidence of mutuality of obligation or sufficient evidence about the contractual arrangements for that period. It therefore accepted that his continuous employment as an employee ran from 1 November 2007 until redundancy on 31 July 2020.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent had correctly calculated the enhanced voluntary redundancy payment on the basis of 12 years' continuous employee service. It also found that, even if the claimant had been an employee from September 2000, the maximum statutory redundancy payment on his figures would still have been lower than the amount he had already received under the voluntary redundancy scheme. The claim for redundancy payment was therefore dismissed.