Graff Diamonds Ltd v. Boatwright [2011] UKEAT 0148_10_0402 (4 February 2011)

Graff Diamonds Ltd v. Boatwright [2011] UKEAT 0148_10_0402 (4 February 2011)

The Tribunal's reasoning regarding whether Mr McLory was dismissed for redundancy was insufficiently explained, and the linkage between the consultation period and the protective award was legally incorrect. Both issues require reconsideration by the Tribunal with further evidence and proper reasoning.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0148_10_0402
Parties
Respondent: Graff Diamonds Ltd; Claimant/appellant: Mark Boatwright
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment Dated 23 December 2009
Outcome
Remitted to the same Tribunal for reconsideration of both the redundancy issue regarding Mr McLory and the length of the protective award.
Legal Topics
Redundancy, Collective Consultation, Protective Award, Section 188 TULRA, Section 189 TULRA
Employment Law Redundancy Collective Consultation Protective Award Section 188 TULRA Section 189 TULRA

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graff Diamonds Ltd

Respondent

Mark Boatwright

Claimant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment Dated 23 December 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent was proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant, triggering collective consultation requirements under section 188 TULRA
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal's reasoning regarding Mr McLory's termination was sufficient and supported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal correctly determined the length of the protective award

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's reasoning regarding whether Mr McLory was dismissed for redundancy was insufficiently explained, and the linkage between the consultation period and the protective award was legally incorrect. Both issues require reconsideration by the Tribunal with further evidence and proper reasoning.

Court Disposition

Remitted to the same Tribunal for reconsideration of both the redundancy issue regarding Mr McLory and the length of the protective award.

Orders

  • The issue of whether the Respondent was proposing to dismiss Mr McLory for redundancy is remitted for reconsideration with further evidence and disclosure.
  • The issue of the length of the protective award is remitted for reconsideration in light of Susie Radin Ltd v GMB.