Case 4107374/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone)10 Mr M Bentley v – Solicitor No Ordinary Designer Label Limited t/a Ted Baker — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107374/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ronald Mackay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone)10 Mr M Bentley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Bentley was employed by No Ordinary Designer Label Limited t/a Ted Baker as Head of European Retail. He was dismissed with effect from 30 July 2020 and was paid in lieu of three months' notice. In his ET1 and at the hearing, he accepted that the dismissal was for redundancy, which is a potentially fair reason for dismissal, but he challenged the fairness of the process, including consultation and the handling of suitable alternative employment.
The respondent did not defend the claim and led no evidence. The tribunal therefore accepted the claimant's account and found the dismissal to have been unfair. The judgment records that the claimant had decided not to apply for an alternative position with the respondent because he no longer had trust that the respondent would manage the process fairly.
On remedy, the tribunal held that no basic award was payable because the claimant had conceded redundancy and had received the correct statutory redundancy payment. For compensatory loss, it found that the claimant had received no employment income since dismissal and had received Jobseeker's Allowance of £1,933.10. The tribunal accepted past loss of £33,125 from 1 November 2020 to the hearing date and added a further 10 weeks' future loss of £16,102, giving a net compensatory figure of £49,227.20.
Because the award exceeded £30,000, the tribunal grossed it up under section 401 ITEPA 2003. It calculated the additional tax gross-up as £1,632, producing a total compensatory award of £50,859. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied; the prescribed element was £33,125 for the period from 1 November 2020 to 25 March 2021, and the balance above that figure was £17,734.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy, so the issue was fairness under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The respondent did not defend the claim or give evidence. The claimant challenged the consultation process and the treatment of suitable alternative employment; the tribunal found the dismissal unfair in the absence of evidence to challenge his account. | Upheld | — | £50,859 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £50,859
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £50,859
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.122(4) ERA 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
- s.401 ITEPA 2003
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.