Ms A Khatun v Winn Solicitors Ltd: 2501492/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 2021 |
| Citation | 2501492/2020 |
| Published date | 14 April 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2501492/2020 (V)
1
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms A Khatun
Respondent: Winn Solicitors Ltd
Heard at: Newcastle Hearing Centre (by CVP) On: 10 and 11 February 2021
Before: Employment Judge Morris (sitting alone)
Representation:
Claimant: Miss L Millin of Counsel
Respondent: Ms D Henning, solicitor
RESERVED JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant’s complaint that her
dismissal by the respondent was unfair, being contrary to sections 94 and 98 of the
Employment Rights Act 1996, is well-founded.
This case will now be listed for a one-day remedy hearing.
REASONS
Representation and evidence
1. The claimant was represented by Miss L Millin of Counsel, who called the
claimant to give evidence. The respondent was represented by Ms D Henning,
one of its employed solicitors, who called four employees of the respondent to
give evidence on its behalf: namely, Ms D Catchpole, Legal Executive; Mr D
Dewar, Solicitor and Associate Director; Ms R Colby Solicitor and Deputy Head
of the Vehicle Damage Litigation Department; Mr C Birkett, Director and Chief
Operating Officer.
2. The evidence in chief of or on behalf of the parties was given by way of written
witness statements, which had been exchanged between them. I also had
before me a bundle of agreed documents comprising some 546 pages. The
Case Number: 2501492/2020 (V)
2
numbers shown in parenthesis in these Reasons refer to page numbers or the
first page number of a large document in that bundle.
The claimant’s complaint
3. The claimant’s complaint was that her dismissal by the respondent was unfair,
being contrary to Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the ERA”) in
that (at the risk of over-simplification) while she accepted that the reason for her
dismissal was “some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the
dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held”, as
contained in section 98(1)(b) of the ERA, the respondent had not acted
reasonably in relation to her dismissal as more particularly set out in section
98(4) of that Act.
The issues
4. Although this case had been listed to determine any remedy as well as liability,
primarily for want of time it was agreed that I would consider only matters relating
to liability. As such, as the respondent accepted that it had dismissed the
claimant, the issues in this case are as follows:
4.1 Has the respondent shown what was the reason or principal reason for the
claimant’s dismissal and, if so, was that a potentially fair reason within
section 98(1) of the ERA?
The respondent says that the reason was “some other substantial reason”
justifying the claimant’s dismissal (“SOSR”) namely that she had declined
to agree to a variation to the terms of her contract of employment, which
was necessary in the interests of the respondent’s business. The claimant
did not dispute that that was the reason for her dismissal, which is a
potentially fair reason dismissal.
4.2 If the reason was SOSR, did the respondent act reasonably in all the
circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the
claimant?
Consideration and findings of fact
5. Having taken into consideration all the relevant evidence before the Tribunal
(documentary and oral), the submissions made on behalf of the parties at the
Hearing and the relevant statutory and case law (notwithstanding the fact that, in
pursuit of some conciseness, every aspect might not be specifically mentioned
below), I record the following facts either as agreed between the parties or found
by me on the balance of probabilities.
5.1 The respondent is a solicitors’ practice. Its main source of work arises
from those who have been involved in a road traffic accident (“RTA”). It is
a large employer of some 250 employees with significant resources
including a dedicated HR Department. It operates within a group of
To continue reading
Request your trial