Case 3319429/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Woodman v Mayles Property Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3319429/2019
- Decision date
- 26 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Members
- Panel members
- Mr B McSweeney, Ms S Laurence-Doig
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Woodman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely by CVP on 24 and 25 August 2020 before Employment Judge Laidler, with lay members Mr B McSweeney and Ms S Laurence-Doig. The claimant, Mr L Woodman, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by an HR representative.
The tribunal found that the reason for the claimant's dismissal was redundancy. It also found that the respondent acted unfairly in treating redundancy as a reason to justify the dismissal of the claimant. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr Woodman £11,815.56 as compensation for unfair dismissal. The age discrimination claim was not determined on its merits because it was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy but held that the respondent acted unfairly in treating redundancy as a reason to justify the claimant's dismissal. | Upheld | — | £11,816 |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the age discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,816
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £11,816
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.