Peter Earle's WorkPlace Conflicts Blog

Introduction Understanding the complexities of unfair dismissal claims is crucial in employment. The case of Stephen Mullen offers an insightful look into the application of legal principles, such as those outlined in section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996. This article explores the details of Mullen's case, highlighting the allegations, investigations, findings, and judicial decisions, while referencing specific legislation. Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that: "The determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer) — (a) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and (b) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case." In other words, Sect...

  Background Claimant: Ms. K Hargreaves   Respondents : Ian Ambrose & Others   Hearing Location: Manchester (via cloud video platform)   Presiding Judge : Employment Judge Sharkett   Representation: Claimant: Representing herself Respondent (Mr. K Swindlehurst, R5): Represented by Mr. K Swindlehurst himself Date of Hearing : 30th August 2023 Preliminary Hearing Judgment The tribunal made the following determinations: 1. It is just and equitable to extend the time for the claimant to bring her claim against Mr. K Swindlehurst (R5). 2. The application by Mr. K Swindlehurst (R5) to have the claim against him struck out on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospects of success is refused. 3. The claimant’s claims of age and sex discrimination against all respondents are dismissed upon her withdrawal. 4. All remaining claims will proceed in accordance with the case management orders already in force. Reasons for the Judgment ...