Case 6001622/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Thompson v Powys County Council and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001622/2025
- Decision date
- 20 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Hughes REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C Thompson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained of unfair dismissal following dismissal from his role as a teacher at Brynllywarch School. The respondents resisted the claim, saying the dismissal was by reason of redundancy arising from reduced requirements for general teaching posts and the introduction of specialist vocational roles.
The tribunal accepted that there was a redundancy situation, but found the dismissal unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not given adequate information about the rationale for his selection scores, which limited his ability to make representations and arose from a breach of the respondents' own policy. It also found that the absence of an appeal was a contributory factor in unfairness, while accepting that reasonable steps were taken to look for suitable alternative employment.
The tribunal stated that, if the dismissal was not for redundancy, it would have been for business reorganisation as some other substantial reason and would still have been unfair for the same reasons. The tribunal did not decide any Polkey adjustment or remedy, referring those matters to a further remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment found the unfair dismissal claim well founded and stated that remedy would be determined at a separate remedy hearing if not agreed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.139(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
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.