Ms J Patel v Citygate Automotive Ltd — 2024

This judgment concerns remedy after the tribunal had already given its liability decision orally on 1 February 2024. The tribunal recorded that Ms Patel had been found unfairly dismissed by Citygate Automotive Ltd and that all claims against the other respondent had been dismissed. Ms Patel asked for reinstatement, or alternatively re-engagement, and the tribunal also noted that her sex discrimination and sex-related harassment allegations had failed. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment; outstanding matters were left to a later hearing.

Applying sections 114 to 116 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the authorities it cited including Kelly v PGA Tour, United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Farren, and Coleman and Stephenson v Magnet Joinery Ltd, the tribunal considered Ms Patel's wishes, practicability, and justice in light of contributory conduct. It heard evidence from Abbie Goldbold, Mr Joshi and Mr Poole. The tribunal found that Ms Patel's former post had been permanently filled, the five sites for which Mr Joshi was responsible were fully staffed, and head office administrator posts were also filled by permanent employees, so there were no vacancies at those locations. A vacancy at a Brentford dealership existed, but Ms Patel did not wish to be considered for it.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Patel's historic poor working relationship with Mr Joshi would not, by itself, prevent a future employment relationship because he had since moved on. It rejected Mr Poole's view that the unsuccessful Equality Act complaints alone were a sound basis to distrust her. However, it found the longstanding lateness issue remained significant, noted that Mr Poole had read the appeal correspondence and did not unreasonably refuse to accept Ms Patel's later account that she had usually been on time and working downstairs, and concluded that it was not persuaded the contract would be successfully performed even if she were re-engaged. The tribunal also considered that a contributory fault reduction was likely to be substantial and held that it would not be just to order reinstatement or re-engagement, so both applications were refused.