Case 1306089/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Worton v Windsor Academy Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 1306089/2020
- Decision date
- 27 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Worton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cookson, sitting alone, heard the case on 22 and 23 April 2021 and gave judgment on 27 April 2021. The tribunal held that Ms N Worton had been unfairly dismissed contrary to s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment records a finding that the claimant contributed to her dismissal by her conduct. On that basis, the tribunal said a 15% reduction would be applied to the compensatory award when remedy was later determined under s.123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that Windsor Academy Trust breached the claimant's contract of employment by failing to pay her for 4 weeks' notice. No remedy figure was fixed in this judgment; remedy was listed to be determined at a later hearing on 2 June 2021 by CVP.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to s.94 ERA 1996. It also found that she contributed to her dismissal by her conduct, and said a 15% reduction would be applied to the compensatory award when remedy was determined under s.123(6) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract of employment by failing to pay her for 4 weeks' notice. Remedy was not determined in this liability judgment and was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.