Case 3200716/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Rifat v Supadance International Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200716/2021
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Rifat
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Rifat was employed by Supadance International Limited for many years and had been Factory Manager from 2017. The tribunal found that her role involved substantial managerial responsibilities, including overseeing factory workers, recording attendance and hours, distributing work tickets, and acting as the main link with the office, while she also did some limited factory-floor work. The respondent’s business was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, but the tribunal found that the claimant’s role remained a real one and that there was still a need to manage the remaining factory workers.
The dismissal took place on 19 August 2020, when the claimant was told she was redundant and given a letter. The tribunal found that there had been no individual consultation with her before that decision, no proper redundancy procedure, no pool or selection exercise, and no consideration of suitable alternative employment. It also found that the respondent did not explore alternatives such as reduced hours, a lower salary, or bumping another employee, and did not identify the particular saving that dismissing the claimant would achieve.
Applying the section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 reasonableness test and the band of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair. It rejected the respondent’s case that the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed one month later if a fair process had been followed, and instead found the evidence too scant to support a rational Polkey reduction. The tribunal said this was a case where reconstruction of what would have happened was too speculative.
The tribunal therefore upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It noted that the claimant had already received a redundancy payment, so any compensation would be limited to a compensatory award, and that the award was subject to the statutory one-year salary cap. It directed that a remedy hearing would be needed if the parties could not agree the compensatory sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed by redundancy. Remedy was not determined at this hearing; the tribunal said a remedy hearing would determine the compensatory award. Because the claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment, compensation was said to be limited to a compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey adjustment
- Software 2000 v Andrews [2007] ICR 825
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.