Case 1302672/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr S Mountford (director) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302672/2021
- Decision date
- 24 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Panel members
- Mrs J Keene, Mr I Morrison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Leigh worked at the Nursery from April 2018 and was dismissed on 22 February 2021. The tribunal accepted that her continuity of employment ran from 30 April 2018, that she had two years' service, and that she was entitled to two weeks' statutory notice. It found she had been dismissed in breach of contract and made a separate notice-pay award.
The whistleblowing complaint failed. The tribunal considered three alleged disclosures concerning an incident involving Mrs Clayton and a CCTV engineer, the fire incident, and matters said to have been reported to the NSPCC and OFSTED. It found Miss Leigh's evidence inconsistent as to what she had seen, how she reported it, and what she actually said. It also found her account relied on assumptions and speculation, and did not identify with sufficient detail the legal obligations or health and safety matters she said were breached, so the disclosures did not qualify for protection under s.43B(1) ERA 1996.
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal complaint. It found that Mr Mountford dismissed Miss Leigh because she would not work her contractual hours and he considered that her probationary period had not been successfully completed. However, it held the process was unfair: Miss Leigh was not given the evidence against her or a proper chance to respond, there were problems with record-keeping and investigation, relevant witnesses were not all spoken to, roles in the process were unclear, and there was no hearing on appeal. The tribunal concluded the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses and inconsistent with natural justice and the ACAS Code.
On remedy, the tribunal rejected contributory conduct reduction. It found that if a fair procedure had been followed, Miss Leigh would still have been dismissed in any event by 28 February 2021, with immediate effect and payment in lieu of two weeks' statutory notice. The final awards were £383.68 gross for breach of contract/notice pay, £383.68 as the basic award, and £191.84 as the compensatory award for loss of statutory rights, making a total award of £959.20 gross. It also noted that the recoupment regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract on 22 February 2021 and awarded £383.68 gross damages for notice. | Upheld | — | £384 |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held the alleged disclosures did not satisfy s.43B(1) ERA 1996 because the claimant's account changed over time, lacked sufficient factual detail, and relied on assumptions rather than specific information. It also found the disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant was dismissed because she would not work her contractual hours, but the dismissal process was unfair. It later found that, had a fair procedure been followed, dismissal would still have occurred by 28 February 2021, and it did not reduce the award for contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | £576 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £959
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £384
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £192
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.43B(1) ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Nurmohamed
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey
- ACAS Code
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.