Case 3320708/2021 · Employment Tribunal
MR MATTHEW RIPLEY MS LESLEY RIPLEY MS NATALIE SPENCER v Cantor & Nissel Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3320708/2021
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ali Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR MATTHEW RIPLEY MS LESLEY RIPLEY MS NATALIE SPENCER
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Watford via CVP before Employment Judge Ali on 27-28 February 2023 and 1 March 2023, found that Mr Matthew Ripley, Ms Lesley Ripley and Ms Natalie Spencer were unfairly dismissed by Cantor & Nissel Limited. The judgment records that the tribunal assessed the chance that the claimants would have been dismissed in any event, around the same time, at 100%.
Because of that finding, the tribunal awarded no compensation for the unfair dismissal claims. The judgment also records a separate award to Mr Ripley only: 2 weeks gross pay, assessed at £961.38, for the respondent's failure to provide him with written particulars of employment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the three claimants were unfairly dismissed, but assessed the chance that they would have been dismissed in any event around the same time at 100%, so no compensation was awarded for the unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Mr Ripley was awarded 2 weeks gross pay as compensation for the respondent's failure to provide him with written particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | £961 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £961
- across all upheld claims
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.