Case 1602409/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Mckay v Bankhouse Care Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602409/2024
- Decision date
- 7 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Webb Representation
- Venue
- ET Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Mckay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Bankhouse Care Limited did not owe Mrs A Mckay any notice pay. It also found that she was unfairly dismissed. The judgment does not record any separate monetary award for the notice pay issue; the only sum ordered to be paid was the award arising from the unfair dismissal finding.
In calculating the basic award, the tribunal used a weekly wage of £28, applied the statutory cap of £700, and treated the claimant as having five years' service over the age of 41, giving 7 weeks at the capped rate, or £4,900 before deduction. It then reduced that figure by 75% for contributory conduct, producing a basic award of £1,225. The tribunal made no compensatory award because it found the claimant had suffered no loss in consequence of the dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent did not owe the claimant any notice pay. | Dismissed | — | £0 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal made a basic award only and no compensatory award because the claimant had no loss in consequence of the dismissal. | Upheld | — | £1,225 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,225
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,225
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- 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.