Case 1603696/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ingrid Hunter v Just One Health and Social Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1603696/2024
- Decision date
- 3 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Ingrid Hunter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Ingrid Hunter, brought complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against Just One Health and Social Care Limited following her summary dismissal on 2 April 2024. The hearing was at Cardiff by video on 4 and 5 December 2024 before Employment Judge S Jenkins. The tribunal found that the dismissal was for conduct, and it recorded that the respondent relied on three allegations: sharing personal information with a resident, making comments about the bathroom to KD's mother, and using inappropriate language in front of a resident's family member.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the Burchell/Iceland Frozen Foods approach and concluded that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct but not reasonable grounds or a sufficient investigation for all of the allegations. It held that the first allegation was framed as disclosure to a resident, but the evidence explored during the disciplinary process focused on possible discussions with staff, not direct disclosure to JC. It also held that the third allegation was based on a misconstruction: the words about the washing machine were said to a member of staff, PM, not in front of a resident's family member. The tribunal accepted that the second allegation was made out, namely the claimant's comment to KD's mother about the bathroom being a 'shithole', but it still found that dismissal for that conduct was outside the range of reasonable responses.
On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the allegation about the bathroom comment was objectively made out, but it did not amount to gross misconduct or a repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal. Compensation was assessed on the basis of a gross weekly pay of £217.70 and seven years' service. The wrongful dismissal award was £1,523.90, being seven weeks' pay. For unfair dismissal, the basic award was calculated at £2,285.85 and reduced by 10% to £2,057.24 for contributory conduct; the compensatory award was £1,001.42 for the period from expiry of notice on 21 May 2024 to 24 June 2024, reduced by 20% overall to £801.14 to reflect contributory conduct and the failure to appeal. The total award was £4,382.28.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was summarily dismissed without notice and that, although one allegation about comments to KD's mother was made out, it did not amount to gross misconduct or a repudiatory breach of contract. The respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,523.90. | Upheld | — | £1,524 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the dismissal was for conduct but was unfair because the Burchell requirements were not met, the first and third allegations were not supported by a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses even on the allegation that was made out. The award was reduced by 10% for contributory conduct on both the basic and compensatory awards, and a further 10% from the compensatory award for failure to appeal. | Upheld | — | £2,858 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,382
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,057
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £801
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
14 references- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- JJ Food Service Limited v Kefil
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- Strouthos v London Underground Limited
- Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.123(4) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.