Case 1403347/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Gabriela Hayward v The Bosham Clinic Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403347/2019
- Decision date
- 23 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Gabriela Hayward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Gabriela Hayward's age discrimination claim against The Bosham Clinic Limited was dismissed. The tribunal found that she was constructively and unfairly dismissed, and it also found that she did not contribute to her own dismissal.
The tribunal recorded that there was a 60% chance that the claimant would have remained employed if a fair disciplinary process had been followed. Remedy was ordered by consent, with the respondent ordered to pay £9,500 in compensation, of which £880 was allocated to wrongful dismissal.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant was 'constructively and unfairly dismissed'. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The extracted text says the claimant was wrongfully dismissed 'by the claimant', which appears to be a drafting or transcription error; the remedy expressly allocates £880 to wrongful dismissal. | Upheld | — | £880 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,500
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £9,500
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.