Case 1309662/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Margaret Ford Representative - Mr Ahmed - Counsel v Lillian Rose Walker t/a Sue and Sally’s Card Shop Representative - Mr A Walker – Husband of Lillian Rose Walker — 2020
- Case reference
- 1309662/2020
- Decision date
- 19 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch RESERVED
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Margaret Ford Representative - Mr Ahmed - Counsel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Margaret Ford had worked for the respondent shop for about 20 years as a sales assistant, working two days a week for £120 per week. The tribunal found it was common ground that she had not been issued with written particulars of employment and had not been paid holiday pay. She told Mr Walker on 18 March 2020 that she would need to self-isolate before a planned medical procedure, and the tribunal accepted that he assured her her job would be waiting when she recovered. After the first COVID-19 lockdown and the shop’s closure, there was no further communication about her return to work, and the tribunal accepted her evidence about a 1 May 2020 call in which Mrs Walker said their daughter Sue was dealing with the return-to-work situation.
When non-essential retail reopened on 15 June 2020, the claimant had still not been contacted about returning for her usual Thursday and Friday shifts. She did not attend on 18 June 2020 and instead prepared letters referring to dismissal, notice pay and redundancy pay. On 19 June 2020 she went to the shop and met Sue, who told her there were no hours for her; the tribunal found that, viewed objectively, those words amounted to a dismissal. The respondent did not reply to the claimant’s letters or otherwise seek to reassure her or dispute her understanding that her employment had ended.
The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair. No fair reason was shown, and although the downturn in work may have been a redundancy situation, there was no evidence of consultation, selection, or other usual redundancy steps. The tribunal relied on section 95 and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and on the objective approach discussed in Avuru and Sandle, in concluding that the claimant had been dismissed on 19 June 2020.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,600 based on the claimant’s age, length of service and weekly pay, and a compensatory award of £5,340 for 45.5 weeks’ loss of earnings to the hearing date, less £120 earned in a new job she started in April 2021. It also awarded a £480 uplift under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because no written particulars had ever been issued. Holiday pay of £672 was awarded separately, producing a total award of £10,092.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal took place on 19 June 2020 and awarded £3,600 basic award, £5,340 compensatory award, plus a £480 uplift under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to issue written particulars. | Upheld | — | £9,420 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had not been paid holiday pay and awarded two years' holiday pay up to the date of dismissal. | Upheld | — | £672 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,092
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,600
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,340
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Avuru v Favermead Ltd
- Sandle v Adecco UK Ltd
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.