Case 1402430/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Annette’s Care Ltd and Annette’s Domiciliary Care Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402430/2019
- Decision date
- 16 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a liability judgment made against both respondents on a joint and severable basis. The tribunal held that both claimants' automatically unfair dismissal claims, pleaded as constructive and express dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, were well founded. It also held that both claimants' claims for detriment for making a protected disclosure were well founded.
The tribunal further found for both claimants on their contractual and pay claims. It upheld the claims for breach of contract in relation to notice pay and in relation to other sums said to be due under the contract of employment at termination. It also upheld the claims for unauthorised deduction of wages and for failure to pay holiday pay. No monetary remedy figures are recorded in this liability judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal (constructive and express dismissal) under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making a protected disclosure. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay notice pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay other sums due under the contract of employment at termination. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction of wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.103A ERA 1996
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.