Case 1800842/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Maddison v Thorpe Willoughby Childcare Centre — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800842/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Maddison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs T Maddison had worked for Thorpe Willoughby Childcare Centre as centre manager from 1 June 2008 until her dismissal on 20 September 2023. The tribunal found that the dismissal was for conduct, arising first and most seriously from the 20 June 2023 incident when a two-year-old child burned a hand on a lamp on the nursery floor. The tribunal found that the claimant did not report the accident to the chair, did not take staff statements, did not wait for the mother, did not call the mother to check on the child, did not remove the lamps immediately, did not ensure the lamps were safe to use, and had not completed risk assessments despite earlier requests.
The tribunal also took into account the claimant's conduct at the 3 July 2023 meeting and a number of other matters identified in the disciplinary process, including shouting at staff, claiming back hours without approval while working from home, leaving the centre without approval with a potential breach of adult-to-child ratios, failing to follow absence notification procedures, and failing to sign in and out of the fire register. It found that the respondent had adequate grounds to believe the claimant was guilty of misconduct and that it had carried out as much investigation as was reasonably possible in the circumstances, including with external HR assistance.
Applying sections 98(1), 98(2) and 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with the Burchell test and the band of reasonable responses approach from Swift, the tribunal held that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer. It noted that the claimant was summarily dismissed for ten instances of misconduct and said that, even if the respondent had dismissed her only for the circumstances surrounding the accident, that alone could have amounted to gross misconduct within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(1), (2) and (4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses (Swift)
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.