Case 3301611/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Hicken v Mr Nigel Ackerman and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301611/2023
- Decision date
- 20 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Hicken
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Hicken was dismissed for redundancy, which it described as a potentially fair reason falling within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that the respondents acted fairly in all the circumstances in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal under section 98(4). The tribunal also found that, even if the dismissal had been unfair, dismissal would have occurred in any event within the same period.
The claimant's application to amend to include a claim for unpaid holiday pay was refused. His claim that he was owed money by way of reimbursement of expenses failed because he had not proved that any such sum was due. His wrongful dismissal claim also failed: the tribunal found he had been given approximately three months' notice, which was more than his contractual entitlement, so there was no breach of contract.
The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to determine the alleged data breach complaint and dismissed it. It further found that the claimant had behaved unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings within Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 and ordered him to pay the respondents £10,000 in costs.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed: the tribunal found redundancy was the reason for dismissal, that it was a potentially fair reason under section 98 ERA 1996, and that the respondents acted fairly under section 98(4). It also said dismissal would have occurred in any event within the same time period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed: the tribunal found the claimant was given approximately three months' notice, which was more than his contractual entitlement, so there was no breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Dismissed: the claimant failed to prove that he was owed money by way of reimbursement of expenses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Dismissed: the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to determine the alleged data breach complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 76 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.