Case 1402450/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Litigant in person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402450/2021
- Decision date
- 8 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Litigant in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Antonia Hall, brought claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages against Astor Bannerman (Medical) Limited. The hearing took place by video on 24 and 25 August 2022 before Judge Guy Davies. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was a litigant in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. It expressly rejected the contention that the dismissal was because she had made protected public interest disclosures. The tribunal found that the redundancy dismissal was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
On the wages claim, which related to an alleged failure to pay a bonus, the tribunal found there was no entitlement under the terms of the contract to the bonus claimed. That claim was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made. The judgment was sent to the parties on 8 September 2022, and the tribunal noted that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days because reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, not because she had made protected public interest disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned an alleged failure to make a bonus payment. The tribunal found there was no contractual entitlement to the bonus claimed. | 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.