Cases1600658/2024

Claimant v WM Morrisons Supermarkets Limited

20 February 2025Before Employment Judge David HughesWalesremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded. The claim was dismissed after a two-day hearing with full representation. The tribunal heard evidence and arguments but concluded the dismissal was fair or the claim otherwise failed on its merits.

Facts

Mr Menzil brought an unfair dismissal claim against his former employer, WM Morrisons Supermarkets Ltd. The case proceeded to a two-day remote video hearing held at Welshpool in February 2025. The claimant was represented by a lay representative, Ms Menzil, while the respondent was represented by counsel.

Decision

After hearing evidence and submissions over two days, Employment Judge G Hughes found that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and dismissed the claim. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.

Practical note

Even with lay representation, claimants bringing unfair dismissal claims against large employers represented by counsel face a significant evidential burden to establish that their dismissal was unfair under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 Part X

Case details

Case number
1600658/2024
Decision date
20 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep