Case 1601933/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms. E.J. Rowlands v Ms. G. Hartford — 2021

Case reference: 1601933/2020
Decision date: 15 January 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms. E.J. Rowlands

Respondent

Ms. G. Hartford

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Ms E.J. Rowlands was unfairly dismissed by Ms G. Hartford on 26 July 2020. It also found that the dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason for dismissal was that, in circumstances of danger, the claimant reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, she took or proposed to take steps to protect herself from the danger.

The tribunal further found that the respondent failed to pay holiday pay due to the claimant on termination of employment. The claim for a redundancy payment was not determined in this liability judgment and was deferred to a date to be set.

The claimant's duplicated claim, numbered 1601938/2020, was dismissed. The judgment states that remedy would be assessed at a later Remedy Hearing to be set.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 26 July 2020 and that the dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was that, in circumstances of danger which she reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, she took or proposed to take steps to protect herself from the danger.	Upheld	—	—
Holiday pay	The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay holiday pay due to the claimant on termination of employment.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The claimant's duplicated claim, numbered 1601938/2020, was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.