Diya Sen Gupta secures another victory for Barclays:
In a Reconsideration Judgment sent to the parties on 9 December 2015, the Employment Tribunal has confirmed its original 2013 decision in the case of Ostendorf v Barclays Capital Services Limited that the Claimant had been fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The case, which started in 2011, was brought by the former Head of Funding Structuring who alleged that his manager, Geoff Smailes, had unfairly dismissed him in order for Mr Smailes to take credit for a trade idea put forward by the Claimant and be financially rewarded as a result. The Claimant valued his claim at over £6.4m.
In its original decision the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant's employment had been fairly terminated by reason of redundancy. It held that the Claimant's trade proposal had not been executed by Barclays and had no bearing on Mr Smailes's decision to terminate the Claimant's employment.
The Claimant sought reconsideration of the judgment in 2013 on the basis that Barclays had executed a specific trade in 2012 which the Claimant alleged was based on his trade proposal and, therefore, undermined the original decision.
At the Reconsideration Hearing, the Employment Tribunal heard detailed evidence on the differences between the Claimant's trade idea in July 2010 and the specific trade executed by Barclays in June 2012.
In a carefully reasoned judgment dated 9 December 2015, Employment Judge McMahon found that the 2012 trade was not the same as the Claimant's 2010 trade proposal and, even if it had been, it had no impact on Mr Smailes's decision to terminate the Claimant's employment in 2010 as he was simply not aware of the Claimant's transaction proposal at that time.
The Judge found that Mr Smailes was a credible witness and that his decision was entirely lawful and based on there being a genuine redundancy situation in 2010 when he dismissed the Claimant. He confirmed the original decision.
The full judgment can be read in the attached PDF.