Case 1403245/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Lickfold v Firvale Clinic Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403245/2022
- Decision date
- 13 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Lickfold
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C Lickfold had worked for Firvale Clinic Limited as practice manager since June 2015. After the clinic moved premises in November 2021, relations between the claimant and Dr Berry deteriorated. The tribunal accepted that there were interpersonal difficulties and that the claimant's behaviour at the Christmas party on 10 December 2021, including offensive comments about UW, was unacceptable and contributed to the eventual dismissal. However, it rejected much of the respondent's wider case about repeated patient complaints, theft, and serious performance failings, and found the contemporaneous WhatsApp messages showed Dr Berry continued to have confidence in the claimant as practice manager into March 2022.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability was upheld. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because of conduct/interpersonal issues, but that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. Remedy was adjourned and any compensatory calculation was to reflect Polkey, contributory conduct, and an ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to six weeks' notice but had only been paid four weeks' notice. Damages were ordered to be determined at the remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and, at the close of the hearing, the respondent confirmed it was no longer challenging the claim. The amount was to be determined at remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Polkey reduction
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice and Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Perkin v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust
- Phoenix House v Stockman
- Lund v St Edmund's School, Canterbury
- Nelson v BBC (No 2)
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.