Case 6019238/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Paisley v Blue Tiger Coffee Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019238/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Paisley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, employed by Blue Tiger Coffee Ltd from 1 May 2018 in a series of roles and from approximately February 2023 as catering manager, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal. The tribunal had to determine the effective date of termination, whether the claimant was dismissed or the contract was ended by mutual agreement, the reason for dismissal (the respondent relying on a substantial reason capable of justifying dismissal, namely a business restructure, the claimant contending redundancy), and whether the respondent acted reasonably under s.98(4) ERA 1996.
Employment Judge Macey held that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant. The tribunal also granted both parties' applications to amend their pleadings to incorporate further factual allegations from their witness statements.
On the question of what would have happened had a fair procedure been followed, the tribunal considered the respondent's allegations against the claimant, accepting that the claimant had breached confidentiality by forwarding her 10 September 2024 email and discussing the offer of the part-time accounts role, while finding other allegations (bad-mouthing, attitude, food safety paperwork) speculative or unsupported. The tribunal concluded there was a 60% chance the claimant would still have been dismissed had a fair process been followed, and accordingly directed a 60% reduction in the compensatory award under Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd. Remedy will be determined at a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the dismissal unfair and applied a 60% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award. Remedy to be decided at a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.111A Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Settlement Agreements
- s.123(1) ERA
- s.123(4) ERA
- s.123(6) ERA
- s.122(2) ERA
- s.207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Phoenix House v Stockman [2017] ICR 84
- Nelson v BBC (No 2) [1980] ICR 110
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.