Case 1601646/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Evans v Just One Health and Social Care Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601646/2022
- Decision date
- 15 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Evans worked as a Support Worker for Just One Health & Social Care Ltd from 5 January 2019 until her summary dismissal on 5 July 2022. The case arose from an incident on 29 April 2022 at the Acorns Project involving service user CG and another support worker, AV. The tribunal found that there was a disagreement about food choices, that Ms Evans raised her voice to CG, and that there was no evidence of any ulterior motive for the dismissal.
The tribunal held that the dismissal process was unfair because the decision-maker, Mr Tomlinson, did not conscientiously and thoroughly assess the evidence before signing off Ms Johnson's draft dismissal letter. He relied on undisclosed critical comments from colleagues that were not put to Ms Evans, did not speak to witnesses, did not resolve inconsistencies in the evidence, and did not properly consider the full range of possible outcomes before approving dismissal. The tribunal found that this reliance on undisclosed material and incomplete investigation made the decision unreasonable and unfair.
The appeal hearing before Mr Price was more thorough, but it did not cure the unfairness because he also relied in part on the same undisclosed colleague statements. He accepted that the allegation about taking away CG's choice was less clear, but upheld dismissal because he believed Ms Evans had raised her voice inappropriately to a vulnerable service user. The tribunal accepted that Ms Evans had put herself at risk of disciplinary sanction, and possibly dismissal, because a Support Worker should not shout at a service user, so contribution and Polkey issues were left for a later remedy hearing. The claimant's initial disability discrimination claim was withdrawn and formally dismissed, and no remedy was determined in this liability judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Withdrawn by the claimant and formally dismissed; no merits determination recorded in this judgment. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2002] EWCA Civ 1588
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17
- Secretary of State for Justice v Lown [2016] IRLR 22
- Polkey principle
- s.122 ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd [2014] ICR 56
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.