B Rogers v. Slimma Plc [2005] UKEAT 0858_04_2103 (21 March 2005)

B Rogers v. Slimma Plc [2005] UKEAT 0858_04_2103 (21 March 2005)

The Tribunal's approach to the selection issue was fatally flawed as it failed to conduct a proper selection exercise from the appropriate pool and improperly relied on LIFO as the sole criterion without sufficient findings. The fairness of the dismissal must be reconsidered by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Citation
[2005] UKEAT 0858_04_2103
Parties
Appellant: Ms Rogers; Respondent: Slimma Plc
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
21 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; issue of fairness remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Redundancy, Unfair Dismissal, Selection Criteria, Alternative Employment, Consultation
Employment Law Redundancy Unfair Dismissal Selection Criteria Alternative Employment Consultation

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Rogers

Appellant

Slimma Plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of Ms Rogers for redundancy was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the selection process for redundancy was properly conducted
  3. 3 Whether alternative employment was adequately considered

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's approach to the selection issue was fatally flawed as it failed to conduct a proper selection exercise from the appropriate pool and improperly relied on LIFO as the sole criterion without sufficient findings. The fairness of the dismissal must be reconsidered by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; issue of fairness remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.

Orders

  • The question of whether Ms Rogers' dismissal for redundancy was fair or unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is remitted for reconsideration by a new Tribunal.
  • No challenge permitted to findings regarding genuine redundancy or automatic unfair dismissal.