Case 1404249/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Rachael Slaughter v Cornwallis Care Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404249/2023
- Decision date
- 14 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sanger REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Rachael Slaughter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Rachael Slaughter, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Cornwallis Care Services Ltd. The matter was heard at Bodmin Magistrates’ Court on 25-26 November 2024 before Employment Judge Sanger, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms Miad Wahabi, Consultant.
The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. No other claims are recorded in the judgment text provided. The reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £5,090.13 and a compensatory award of £4,648.26. The judgment states that these were the actual sums payable to the claimant after any deductions or uplifts had been applied, and that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded and awarded a basic award of £5,090.13 and a compensatory award of £4,648.26. The judgment states these are the actual sums payable after any deductions or uplifts. | Upheld | — | £9,738 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,738
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,090
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,648
- 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.