Case 1303435/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Morgan v Progress Adult Living Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303435/2022
- Decision date
- 22 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Connolly
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Morgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone, held that Ms B Morgan was unfairly dismissed by Progress Adult Living Services Limited. It recorded that her unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
The tribunal also found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract of employment by dismissing her without notice. No monetary award figures were set out in the judgment extract.
The judgment stated that any compensatory award for unfair dismissal would be reduced by 85% under s.123(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The stated reason was that the tribunal considered there was a likelihood the claimant would have resigned in any event because of perceived breaches of trust and confidence by the respondent, irrespective of the breach of trust and confidence found proved.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. It also stated that any compensatory award would be reduced by 85% under s.123(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract of employment by dismissing her without notice. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.123(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.