Case 1308953/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Smith (Claimant’s Spouse) For v Mrs G Carter (Solicitor) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1308953/2019
- Decision date
- 6 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Smith (Claimant’s Spouse) For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Birmingham before Employment Judge Gaskell, held that Mr S Smith was fairly dismissed by Coventry City Council. His claim for unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that he was lawfully dismissed in accordance with his contract of employment, so his claim for wrongful dismissal, described in the judgment as unpaid notice pay, was dismissed. A separate claim for unlawful deductions from wages in relation to TOIL was also dismissed as not well-founded.
The written record notes that the respondent's application for a contribution towards its costs was refused. The judgment records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was fairly dismissed and found the unfair dismissal claim not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was lawfully dismissed in accordance with his contract of employment; the claim concerned unpaid notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unlawful deductions from wages relating to TOIL was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.