Case 3301799/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lewis-Bale (Counsel) For v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3301799/2020
- Decision date
- 2 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr J Lewis-Bale (Counsel) For
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent relied on redundancy as the potentially fair reason for dismissal, while the claimant alleged that disciplinary proceedings had influenced the redundancy process.
The tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy situation and that there was no evidence the disciplinary process influenced the redundancy process. It also found that the respondent had not failed to offer suitable alternative employment and that the claimant had been informed and reminded about the employee transfer register.
The tribunal concluded that the respondent's overall process was fair in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the dispute. The claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, so the unfair dismissal claim failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the unfair dismissal claim therefore failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- s.111A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP v Bailey 2016 ICR 1054
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.