Case 3300820/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Jennifer Habricot v Spirol Industries Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300820/2022
- Decision date
- 8 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Jennifer Habricot
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Jennifer Habricot was employed by Spirol Industries Limited as a bilingual HR Administrator from 21 June 2021. On 19 October 2021 she was told that her role was being removed from the UK and that her employment would end that day, with payment in lieu of notice to follow in payroll. Her appeal was heard by Lynne McCann and rejected on 2 November 2021.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had been employed for less than four months and therefore did not have sufficient continuous service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The judgment records that she was not bringing a claim for automatically unfair dismissal.
The tribunal also rejected the complaint about being accompanied and about consultation meetings. It held that there is no statutory entitlement to individual redundancy consultation meetings, and that the right to be accompanied in section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 applies only to disciplinary or grievance hearings. The tribunal found from the contemporaneous documents that the meeting in issue was a redundancy meeting.
The breach of contract claim failed because the claimant's contract did not provide for any redundancy procedure. The unlawful deduction of wages claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been paid as shown on the payslips, found that there had been no deduction from wages, and concluded that her calculation for 19 days' work was incorrect. It found the correct figure to be £724.82 and said she appeared to have been overpaid. All claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant had less than four months' service and the tribunal found she did not have sufficient continuous service for ordinary unfair dismissal. The judgment notes that she was not bringing a claim for automatically unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim concerned the alleged failure to follow a redundancy procedure and notice pay. The tribunal found the contract did not provide for any redundancy procedure and there was no breach of contract in the procedure followed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found no deduction from wages. It recorded payments of £1,182.41, £664.87 and £163.71, and held the claimant's calculation for 19 days' work was wrong; it found the correct figure to be £724.82 and said she appeared to have been overpaid. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999
- s.11 Employment Relations Act 1999
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.