Case 2602600/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Denman-Brown v Grassfields Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602600/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Denman-Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs B Denman-Brown withdrew the Part Time Workers Regulations claim and the unlawful deduction claim for pension contributions. A further unlawful deduction issue concerning alleged 2018 shortfalls was held to be out of time under s.23(2) ERA 1996, so the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction over those items. The furlough-related figures were not awarded separately; they were treated as part of the compensation exercise for dismissal.
The tribunal found that the letter of 28 February 2020 was a dismissal, effective 30 April 2020, and that the reason was redundancy. It held the respondent had not followed the redundancy procedure in its handbook, so the dismissal was procedurally unfair. Applying Polkey and Software 2000, the tribunal assessed an 80% chance that the employment would have continued if a fair process had been followed, because the claimant would likely have been furloughed. The judgment recorded the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims as succeeding, but the final order did not allocate a separate redundancy sum beyond the basic award figure.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £392.40 and a compensatory award of £5,694.40 before reducing it by 20% to £4,555.52. That figure included £250 for loss of statutory rights and £5,022.72 plus £421.68 for lost earnings over the stated period. It refused an uplift under the ACAS code, treating the grievance letter as a request for clarification rather than a grievance, and it awarded £523.20 under s.38(3) Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars. The total ordered was £5,471.12.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | Less favourable treatment claim under the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000; withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction from wages in respect of pension contributions; withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the letter of 28 February 2020 was a dismissal effective 30 April 2020, that the reason was redundancy, and that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the respondent did not follow its redundancy procedure. A Polkey reduction was then applied. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment recorded entitlement to a redundancy payment as succeeding, but the final order did not set out a separate redundancy payment figure beyond the basic award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | A separate unlawful deduction issue concerning alleged 2018 shortfalls was held to be out of time under s.23(2) ERA 1996, and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear those elements. The furlough-related figures were dealt with in the dismissal compensation calculation rather than as a separate award. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,471
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £392
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,556
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(1) and (2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- s.23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38(3) Employment Act 2002
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 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.