Case 4107712/2020 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4107712/2020 Heard at Edinburgh on the th and th April 2021 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Miss D Noble v Jill Brown trading as Nice Stuff — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107712/2020
- Decision date
- 2 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joseph
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4107712/2020 Heard at Edinburgh on the th and th April 2021 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Miss D Noble
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that a genuine redundancy situation existed after Jill Brown trading as Nice Stuff closed the Broughton Street outlet and reduced staffing because trading had fallen and the business could not continue to run two outlets. It accepted that Miss D Noble had 10 years' continuous service and that, at the 18 August 2020 meeting, she said she was volunteering for redundancy; the respondent then accepted that offer by email. The tribunal also found that three other affected staff agreed reduced hours, so the need for compulsory redundancy selection did not arise.
The unfair dismissal claim failed. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the respondent acted reasonably in accepting the claimant's offer of voluntary redundancy when she did, and that the procedure was not defective or unfair. The ACAS disciplinary and grievance code was said to exclude redundancies, and the tribunal accepted that the respondent could move the remaining discussion to email rather than hold further face-to-face meetings.
The claimant's breach of contract and wrongful dismissal claims fell away because she accepted that her reduction in hours from 16 to 14.5 per week had been agreed by mutual variation in January 2019. The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to award damages for personal injury caused by stress and anxiety outside the discrimination context, and the claimant did not insist on that claim.
On remedy, the tribunal used a weekly wage of £132.92, based on 768 hours a year at £9 per hour, and rejected the respondent's 14.5-hour calculation and any retrospective reduction for the alleged annual-leave offset. It calculated statutory redundancy pay at £1,993.80 and notice-equivalent pay at £1,329.20, credited sums already paid of £1,957.50 and £1,305, and therefore ordered balances of £36.30 and £24.20, making the total award £60.50.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation and held the dismissal fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Balance of the statutory redundancy payment after applying a weekly wage of £132.92 and crediting the amount already paid. | Upheld | — | £36 |
| Other | Balance of the agreed notice-equivalent payment for the 10-week notice period; the judgment treated this as a separate monetary balance rather than the dismissed wrongful dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | £24 |
| Breach of contract | Claim fell away after the claimant accepted that the reduction in hours had been agreed by mutual variation. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim fell away with the breach of contract claim after the claimant accepted the hours variation was consensual. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Claim for damages for personal stress and anxiety; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to award such damages outside discrimination and the claimant did not insist on the claim. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £61
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.162 ERA 1996
- ss.221-229 ERA 1996
- Secretary of State for Employment v John Woodrow and Sons (Builders) Limited [1983] IRLR 11
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.