Case 1403655/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Litigant in person For the v Ms Amy Jervis — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403655/2021
- Decision date
- 11 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Litigant in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mrs Christine Frew's unfair dismissal claim. It found that her dismissal was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. No monetary remedy was awarded.
The tribunal also dismissed her breach of contract claims. On the notice claim, it held that because she had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct she was not entitled to contractual notice. On the claim relating to an agreement to buy back shares, the tribunal said the relevant term made the buy-back entirely discretionary and that the claim was outside its jurisdiction because it did not arise and was not outstanding on termination of employment.
A further breach of contract claim for loss of share option rights was dismissed because the scheme included an exclusion clause exempting the employer from liability to pay compensation where employment had ceased. The claim for compensation for damage to a motor car was also dismissed as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. Mr Gordon Frew's claim was withdrawn and dismissed in accordance with Rule 52.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for failure to give proper notice; the tribunal said that, following summary dismissal for gross misconduct, the claimant was not entitled to contractual notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for damages for failure to comply with an agreement to buy back shares; the tribunal said the buy-back was at the respondent's discretion and the claim was outside jurisdiction because it did not arise and was not outstanding on termination of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for damages for loss of share option rights; the tribunal relied on an exclusion clause in the scheme and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for compensation for damage to a motor car; the tribunal said this was outside its jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim by Mr Gordon Frew; the judgment states that the claim was withdrawn and dismissed in accordance with Rule 52. The legal type is not identified in the judgment. |
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.