The court is basically only judging the process of redundancy. Not the legality of the actions the applicant alleges.
Was the redundancy true & done correctly - ie was the position no longer needed. Or were the reasons the applicant alleges caused it the reason he was ditched.
If those alleged issues are judged as part of why the applicant was made redundant, then how much damage they caused - so compensation can be calculated.
The judgement will be whether the applicant was legally made redundant or not. And if not, how he should be compensated. The weird thing is he is asking for reinstatement as part of the compensation. Why? - if you thought the company was so dodgy.
Only my reading of it all - could easily be wrong.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
