Case 6011425/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs V Tattersall v Control & Skills Authority Limited (formerly Association of Cost Engineers Limited) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011425/2024
- Decision date
- 27 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McGough Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs V Tattersall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was employed as an Administration Assistant and was dismissed on 26 July 2024. She brought a complaint of unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the Respondent said the reason for dismissal was redundancy.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent adequately warned and consulted the Claimant, used a reasonable selection pool and fair selection criteria, and acted within the range of reasonable responses in applying the scoring criteria. It also found that there was unlikely to be suitable alternative employment given the Respondent's small size.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was fairly dismissed on the grounds of redundancy. Her complaint of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taymech v Ryan
- Dabson v David Cover and Sons Ltd EAT 0374/10
- Gwynedd Council v Barratt
- range of reasonable responses
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.