Case 3200320/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Newman v Bywaters (Leyton) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200320/2021
- Decision date
- 4 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Newman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant leave to amend the claim to include indirect sex discrimination, less favourable treatment as a part-time worker, and/or age discrimination. It then found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy.
Although redundancy was the reason for dismissal, the tribunal held that the dismissal was not fair in all the circumstances of the case under s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. It further found that, if a fair procedure had been followed, there was a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed.
The tribunal recorded that a statutory redundancy payment had been made and therefore there was no financial award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, but that the dismissal was not fair in all the circumstances under s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also refused leave to amend to add indirect sex discrimination, less favourable treatment as a part-time worker, and age discrimination. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.98(4) 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.