Case 1600789/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Mace v Mount Pleasant Practice — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600789/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ward Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Mace
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mrs C Mace's claim that she was unfairly dismissed by Mount Pleasant Practice on 11 April 2019. It recorded that she had worked as a medical receptionist, had raised concerns about lone working, underpayment, appraisals, contracts, and the practice manager's conduct, and that after a grievance meeting on 4 April 2019 the respondent investigated her accessing the Portskewett surgery computer outside normal working hours and printing emails containing patient-sensitive data.
Applying section 98(2)(b) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and referring to British Home Stores Limited v Burchell, the tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant had committed gross misconduct, had carried out a reasonable investigation, and had acted within the range of reasonable responses in dismissing her. It noted that the claimant had admitted attending the surgery and printing emails, had been warned about patient confidentiality in her job description and staff acceptable use charter, and had appealed unsuccessfully against dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal identified the sole issue as whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 11 April 2019. It found the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal in conduct and that the dismissal was fair under section 98 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
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.