Miss M Zhou v Boots UK Ltd (England and Wales : Redundancy) [2024] UKET 2304394/2023 (14 October 2024)

The tribunal found that the dismissal was a genuine redundancy and that the respondent followed a fair procedure.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] UKET 2304394/2023
Parties: Claimant: Miss M Zhou; Respondent: Boots UK Ltd
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 14 October 2024
Procedural Posture: Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome: claim dismissed
Legal Topics: Redundancy

Employment Law Redundancy

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Miss M Zhou

Claimant

Boots UK Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 whether the claimant's dismissal was a genuine redundancy
2 whether the respondent followed a fair redundancy procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the dismissal was a genuine redundancy and that the respondent followed a fair procedure.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.