Case 3308194/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Binns (Lay representative). For the v Michael Mackle (Managing Director) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3308194/2023
- Decision date
- 28 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Lewis KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Binns (Lay representative). For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal reconsidered the written judgment sent to the parties on 28 August 2024 because it had not given credit for an enhanced redundancy payment when calculating the compensatory award for unfair dismissal. The reconsideration note records that the claimant, Ms Ebony Morris, had already been found unfairly dismissed at the hearing on 23 August 2024, and that the original compensatory award of £1,222.50 was calculated in error because the redundancy payment issue had not been properly reflected.
Applying s.123(7) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the enhanced redundancy payment in excess of statutory redundancy was £1,680 and that this extinguished the compensatory award in full. The tribunal therefore varied paragraph 2 of the earlier judgment, revoked the compensation award, and recorded that there was no compensatory or basic award in respect of the unfair dismissal claim. No further hearing was needed because no response was received to the tribunal's proposed correction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed. At the original hearing a compensatory award of £1,222.50 was made, but on reconsideration the tribunal revoked that award after crediting the respondent's enhanced redundancy payment under s.123(7) ERA 1996; no basic or compensatory award remained in respect of the claim. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123(7) ERA 1996
- s.122(4) ERA 1996
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.