Case 1400582/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Openshaw v Hestia Care Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400582/2020
- Decision date
- 30 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Openshaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 22 and 23 June 2021 at Bristol by video before Employment Judge C H O’Rourke. The Claimant, Mrs J Openshaw, was represented in person and the Respondent, Hestia Care Limited, was represented by Mr Johnson, a consultant.
In the written judgment record, the tribunal stated that the Claimant’s claims of constructive unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal on health and safety grounds, breach of contract in respect of notice, and detriment on grounds of protected disclosure all failed and were dismissed. No separate findings of liability or remedy are set out in the written record.
The record also states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. On the face of the written judgment, there is no award of compensation or other remedy recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records that the Claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the Claimant’s automatic unfair dismissal claim on health and safety grounds failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claim for breach of contract in respect of notice failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the detriment claim on grounds of protected disclosure failed and was dismissed. | 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.