Claimant v Sunflower Spalding Cash and Carry Limited (in Creditors' Voluntary Liquidation)
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent did not attend the hearing and filed no evidence in support of its response. As a result, the respondent failed to prove a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair and that the respondent had significantly failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice Number 1.
Facts
Ms Beresford was dismissed by Sunflower Spalding Cash and Carry Limited, a company that subsequently entered creditors' voluntary liquidation. The respondent indicated it would not attend the hearing or defend the case, but did not concede that the dismissal was unfair. The respondent filed no evidence and did not attend the hearing held by video.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent failed to prove a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The tribunal also found the respondent had significantly failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice Number 1, warranting a 20% uplift to the compensatory award. Total compensation awarded was £34,584.46.
Practical note
When a respondent fails to attend and provides no evidence, they cannot discharge the burden of proving a potentially fair reason for dismissal, making the dismissal automatically unfair.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
The respondent significantly failed to follow ACAS Code of Practice Number 1, warranting a 20% uplift to the compensatory award (£3,197.41)
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 6009011/2025
- Decision date
- 25 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No