Marshalls of Cambridge Aerospace Ltd v. Warnock [2003] UKEAT 0250_03_0809 (8 September 2003)

Marshalls of Cambridge Aerospace Ltd v. Warnock [2003] UKEAT 0250_03_0809 (8 September 2003)

The dismissal was unfair due to failure to follow redundancy procedures and lack of consultation; proper consultation would have revealed the regulatory restriction was temporary, and the Applicant would not have been dismissed.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0250_03_0809
Parties
Respondent: EEF; Applicant: Mr T Warnock
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; compensation reduced.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy, Compensation, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Redundancy Compensation Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

EEF

Respondent

Mr T Warnock

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the Applicant was unfair due to redundancy and procedural failures
  2. 2 Whether compensation should be reduced based on likelihood of dismissal regardless of procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal was unfair due to failure to follow redundancy procedures and lack of consultation; proper consultation would have revealed the regulatory restriction was temporary, and the Applicant would not have been dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; compensation reduced.

Orders

  • Compensation to Applicant reduced by £5,207.60
  • Otherwise, appeal dismissed