Case 1802530/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Charmaine Angela Cunningham v Asda Stores Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1802530/2023
- Decision date
- 29 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rakhim
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Charmaine Angela Cunningham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed on capability grounds after a period of long-term sickness absence. The tribunal treated the claim as one of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with the agreed issues focused on whether capability was the reason for dismissal, whether the respondent acted reasonably, and whether a fair procedure was followed.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to rely on a covert recording relating to earlier grievance matters because it did not consider that evidence relevant to the capability dismissal issues. It found that the respondent had considered occupational health material, sickness absence, meetings, possible adjustments and alternative locations, and the claimant's position about returning to work.
The tribunal concluded that it was reasonable for the respondent to decide there was no realistic prospect of the claimant returning to work and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint for unfair dismissal was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 98(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- band of reasonable responses
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.