Case 1401769/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401769/2022
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Katrina Kevern, had worked for Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust since 28 May 2001 and was summarily dismissed on 10 January 2022 for gross misconduct. The judgment records that her related disability discrimination claim had already been dismissed for want of sufficient particulars. The dismissal arose from concerns about the claimant's dealings with a vulnerable service user referred to as Patient A and with the estate agent Mr Tim Glasson.
The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a thorough investigation. The evidence relied on included the claimant introducing Patient A to Mr Glasson, providing Patient A's mobile number to a surveyor, saving patient contact details on her personal phone, failing to document or escalate concerns, making unplanned visits, and making a call to a surveyor while posing as Patient A. The disciplinary panel did not uphold allegation 11 about taking Patient A's personal items.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's allegation that Mrs Roberts had improperly influenced the disciplinary and appeal decision-makers. It found that the disciplinary panel and appeal panel made their decisions independently, that the claimant was given the opportunity to participate and appeal, and that the appeal was dismissed after she chose to proceed in her absence.
Applying section 98(2)(b) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Burchell approach, the band of reasonable responses test, and the overall fairness analysis including Taylor v OCS Group Ltd, the tribunal held that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses open to the respondent. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment says the disability discrimination claim had already been dismissed for want of sufficient particulars as to the alleged disability and the discrimination claims, and that the claimant did not oppose that decision at the time. No merits findings on discrimination are set out in this judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 1 on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- Wilson v Racher
- Neary v Dean of Westminster
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.