Case 1303267/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D. Wilson v Mrs K. Moore t/a JK Caring for You — 2019
- Case reference
- 1303267/2018
- Decision date
- 20 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Sitting
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs L.A. Evans, Mrs M.J. Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D. Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe unanimous judgment of the tribunal, sitting at Birmingham on 18, 19 and 20 September 2019 before Employment Judge Reed with Mrs L.A. Evans and Mrs M.J. Howard, was that Mrs D. Wilson was unfairly dismissed by Mrs K. Moore t/a JK Caring for You. The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's complaint that she had been subjected to detriments on the ground that she had made a protected disclosure, and dismissed her claim for unauthorised deductions from wages.
The tribunal further found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to give notice of dismissal, and that it failed to provide a statement of principal terms of employment. The extracted judgment records these liability findings only and does not state any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found the claimant had not been subjected to detriments on the ground that she had made a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had not made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to give notice of dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with a statement of principal terms of employment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.