Cases6012641/2024

Claimant v Novita Diamonds Limited

29 July 2025Before Employment Judge Mr J S BurnsLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£24,885

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because there was no genuine redundancy situation, the logistics operations function continued, and there was a fundamental breach of fairness requirements. The claimant was given no prior warning or consultation before the meeting on 12 July 2024 which opened after all final decisions had been made. The tribunal found no proper consultation occurred when proposals were in a formative stage as required by law.

Facts

The claimant worked as Operations Logistics Manager for a diamond trading company from February 2022 to July 2024. On 12 July 2024, one hour before end of shift, she was called to a meeting and told her role was redundant effective immediately. No prior warning or consultation had occurred. All decisions including dismissal and no redeployment had been made before the meeting. The claimant raised a grievance challenging the lack of consultation, unclear selection criteria, and failure to explore alternatives. She subsequently returned to Italy due to ill-health and inability to afford her London accommodation.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The respondent's witnesses failed to appear to prove a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The tribunal was not satisfied there was a genuine redundancy situation as the logistics operations function continued. There was no prior consultation before the meeting which opened after all decisions had been made. The tribunal declined to apply a Polkey reduction given the fundamental breach and lack of reliable evidence about the workplace situation.

Practical note

A redundancy dismissal will be unfair where all decisions are made before any consultation meeting with the employee, and employers cannot remedy fundamental procedural failures through an appeal process alone.

Award breakdown

Basic award£114
Compensatory award£21,547
Pension loss£1,336
Loss of statutory rights£350

Award equivalent: 32.4 weeks' gross pay

Legal authorities cited

Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142R v British Coal Corp ex parte Price [1994] IRLR 72Rowell v Hubbard Group Services Limited [1995] IRLR 195King v Eaton Ltd no 2 [1998] IRLR 686

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.139(1)ERA 1996 s.98(1)ERA 1996 s.98(2)ERA 1996 s.1ERA 1996 s.98(4)ERA 1996 s.4Employment Act 2002 s.38

Case details

Case number
6012641/2024
Decision date
29 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
No
Rep type
in house

Employment details

Role
Operations Logistics Manager (previously Production Manager)
Salary band
£40,000–£50,000
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No