Case 1402326/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Dyson Counsel, instructed by Spencers Solicitors, Chesterfield For the v Mr P Saunders (co-owner of the respondent company) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402326/2021
- Decision date
- 6 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hogarth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Dyson Counsel, instructed by Spencers Solicitors, Chesterfield For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDonna Griffiths was employed by N & C Leisure Limited as manager of the Barrington Arms Hotel from 1 October 2017 until her employment ended on 29 January 2021 after one month’s notice given on 30 December 2020. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct-related, namely Mr Saunders’ belief that she had been under the influence of alcohol on a number of occasions on the premises. It accepted that he genuinely held that belief and that, on the material he had gathered, he had reasonable grounds for it.
The tribunal found that Mr Saunders’ investigation, carried out in the context of a very small business operating during the pandemic, was within the range of reasonable responses. However, the procedure before and at the disciplinary meeting was not fair: the claimant was not told in advance that the meeting was disciplinary, was not given the evidence against her, was not told of the right to be accompanied, and was not given a proper opportunity to answer the allegations. The tribunal therefore held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98 ERA 1996. It said that, had it been necessary, it would have assessed a 15% Polkey reduction and a 20% ACAS uplift.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s own blameworthy conduct caused or contributed to her dismissal to the extent of 100%. It relied on her leaving the hotel in the charge of an inappropriate person on 4 August 2020, returning to deal with trouble while drunk, and other occasions of drunken behaviour on the premises. That finding meant that no basic award or compensatory award was payable for the unfair dismissal claim. Separately, the tribunal upheld the section 38 Employment Act 2002 claim because the written particulars of employment were incomplete and defective in several respects, and it awarded the minimum amount of two weeks’ pay, £1,076.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the procedure before and at the 30 December 2020 meeting was not reasonable, including lack of prior notice, no disclosure of the evidence, and no right to be accompanied. It accepted that Mr Saunders genuinely believed the misconduct allegations and had reasonable grounds, but held that the claimant’s conduct caused or contributed to her dismissal to the extent of 100%, so no basic or compensatory award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Claim under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide compliant written particulars of employment. The tribunal found the written contract omitted or inadequately stated required particulars, including the employer’s name, salary, hours of work, holiday details and accommodation, and awarded the statutory minimum of two weeks’ pay. | Upheld | — | £1,076 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,076
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell
- Post Office v Foley
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.207A(2) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.