Cases6002245/2025

Claimant v Dentaprime UK plc

13 June 2025Before Employment Judge CarpenterLondon Eastremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to carry out adequate consultation with the claimant before the decision was taken to move the HR department overseas to Bulgaria. The respondent did not consult while the proposal was at a formative stage as required by De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd. Although the respondent engaged about redeployment, this did not satisfy the consultation requirements for fair redundancy dismissal.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The Tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint in respect of holiday pay. The respondent failed to pay holiday pay owed to the claimant upon termination of employment.

Redundancy Paysucceeded

The Tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint for unlawful deduction of wages in respect of redundancy pay. The respondent failed to pay the statutory redundancy payment owed to the claimant.

Facts

The claimant worked in the respondent's HR department. The respondent decided to transfer the HR department to Bulgaria and made the claimant redundant. The claimant was not consulted about the relocation proposal while it was at a formative stage. The respondent did not pay holiday pay or redundancy pay owed. The respondent applied for reconsideration of the tribunal's judgment upholding the claims.

Decision

The tribunal refused the respondent's reconsideration application under Rule 70(2) of the 2024 Rules. The tribunal confirmed there was no reasonable prospect of varying or revoking the judgment. The tribunal found no judicial error in its findings on unfair dismissal or in awarding compensation beyond the schedule of loss, as it was entitled to award just and equitable compensation.

Practical note

Employers must consult about redundancy while proposals are at a formative stage, and tribunals are not bound by claimants' schedules of loss when awarding just and equitable compensation under s.123 ERA 1996.

Legal authorities cited

Ebury Partners Ltd v Acton Davis [2023] EAT 40De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1291Outasight VB Ltd v Brown [2015] ICR D11

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.123

Case details

Case number
6002245/2025
Decision date
13 June 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
2
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
HR department role

Claimant representation

Represented
No