The process of the company making the claimant redundant had been declared a sham. The company appealed against a decision that even had the correct procedures been followed, the decision would have been the same. The tribunal said that insufficient evidence had been brought to support such an assertion.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The employer’s ‘case was that it had fairly and reasonably dismissed him for redundancy following actual consideration of, and consultation with him on, the ‘swallowing up’ point. That point was neither mentioned in the note of the critical meeting with Mr Whitworth nor in the ET3. Strand’s evidence on that aspect of redundancy in the witness statements and in the answers of Mr Greenhalgh in cross examination was not accepted. It was correct for the ET to conclude that there was ‘no evidence’ to support the Polkey point in the commonly accepted sense that no relevant facts were established by credible evidence. ‘
Judges:
Mummery, Longmore, Lloyd LJJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 858
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 98A(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited HL 19-Nov-1987
Mr Polkey was employed as a driver. The company decided to replace four van drivers with two van salesmen and a representative. Mr Polkey and two other van drivers were made redundant. Without warning, he was called in and informed that he had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.372638
