Case 1401189/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Morris v The Partners (as listed in the appendix) t/a Shelley Manor and Holdenhurst Medical Centre — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401189/2021
- Decision date
- 19 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Matthews Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Morris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Morris was the Practice Business Manager and was summarily dismissed on 24 December 2020. The tribunal found that she had claimed overtime through the COVID support fund at 1.25 times salary, totalling about £15,900 by the end of September 2020 and £16,888.39 for April to September 2020, and that she did so without the partner authorisation required by her contract. Her two money claims were dealt with by consent: the £62.38 claim was withdrawn, and the respondent was ordered by consent to pay £2,050.68 gross subject to lawful deductions.
On whistleblowing, the tribunal did not accept that the August and September discussions about extended hours with Dr Zahedi, Dr Walker-Date and Dr Savage were protected disclosures. It found that the 12 October 2020 meeting with Dr Walker-Date and Dr Yeoman, in which Mrs Morris referred to going to the CQC about extended hours and honesty, could amount to a qualifying disclosure to the employer under section 43B. The later comment to Dr Zahedi about the practice being fudged did not meet the statutory test.
The tribunal held that the protected disclosure was not the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal. It found that the Practice dismissed Mrs Morris for conduct reasons recorded in the dismissal letter, namely claiming overtime hours without partner authorisation and claiming hours that were not all COVID-related. Applying section 98 ERA, it found a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim and the wrongful dismissal claim were therefore dismissed; the tribunal also said that, even if unfair dismissal had been made out, any basic or compensatory award would have been reduced to nil because of Mrs Morris's contribution.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says this TOIL/overtime claim was withdrawn by consent, but the respondent was also ordered by consent to pay £2,050.68 gross subject to lawful deductions. | Withdrawn | — | £2,051 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Wages claim of £62.38; withdrawn by consent and no separate payment order is recorded. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,051
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 43A ERA
- section 43B ERA
- section 43C ERA
- section 94 ERA
- section 98 ERA
- section 98(4) ERA
- section 103A ERA
- section 122(2) ERA
- section 123(6) ERA
- ACAS Code of Practice (2015)
- band of reasonable responses
- reasonable belief, reasonable grounds and reasonable investigation
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.