Loading…

Unfair dismissal cases against Had acted fairly in terms of section 98(4) ERA. 48. In the first instance it was said that there had been a fair system of selection in place. The question of pooling was subject to the reasonable responses test and the — employment tribunal data | Tribunal Watch

Employer × claim type

Unfair dismissal cases against Had acted fairly in terms of section 98(4) ERA. 48. In the first instance it was said that there had been a fair system of selection in place. The question of pooling was subject to the reasonable responses test and the

Tribunal Watch has indexed 1 case involving unfair dismissal claims against Had acted fairly in terms of section 98(4) ERA. 48. In the first instance it was said that there had been a fair system of selection in place. The question of pooling was subject to the reasonable responses test and the, out of 1 total case on record for this employer. See also all unfair dismissal cases across every employer.

Unfair dismissal cases: 1
Total awarded: —
Share of employer caseload: 100%

All unfair dismissal cases against Had acted fairly in terms of section 98(4) ERA. 48. In the first instance it was said that there had been a fair system of selection in place. The question of pooling was subject to the reasonable responses test and the

1 case · chronological

Case ref.	Decided	Jurisdiction	Claimant	Claim types	Award
8000083/2023	5 July 2023	Scotland	Mr R Alexander, solicitor Judgment The	Unfair dismissal	—

Methodology

This page lists the subset of Had acted fairly in terms of section 98(4) ERA. 48. In the first instance it was said that there had been a fair system of selection in place. The question of pooling was subject to the reasonable responses test and the's tribunal cases tagged with unfair dismissal in the §4.4 claim-type taxonomy. A single judgment frequently combines multiple claim types, so the same case may appear on more than one claim-type page. Award figures are taken from the remedy section of each judgment where present; cases without a quantified award — because the tribunal only determined liability, or because the remedy hearing is pending — are listed with no award amount. See how the data is built.