Case 1806473/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Hogson v South Elmsall Community Facilities Ltd Heard: in Leeds — 2024
- Case reference
- 1806473/2023
- Decision date
- 26 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Hogson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Nursery Manager employed from 19 February 2018 until 2 May 2023, was dismissed with immediate effect following a disciplinary process arising from three allegations of wrongdoing. The respondent did not file a response, attend the hearing or play any part in the proceedings. As the burden of proving a fair reason for dismissal lay with the respondent and was not discharged, Employment Judge Ayre found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The judge accepted the claimant's evidence that she had provided an explanation for each of the allegations put to her.
The judge also found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed, holding that she had not committed gross misconduct or a fundamental breach of contract. Although the contract provided for four weeks' notice, the statutory minimum notice in s.86 ERA 1996 overrode the contract, entitling the claimant to five weeks' notice given her five complete years of service. Damages for wrongful dismissal were assessed at £1,723 (5 x £344.60 net weekly pay).
On remedy, the basic award was £3,150 (7.5 weeks' gross pay at £420). The compensatory award comprised £400 for loss of statutory rights and £13,045.57 for loss of earnings from the end of the notice period to the hearing date, totalling £13,445.57. No award was made for future loss because the claimant had brought forward her retirement and drawn her pensions; no deduction was made for mitigation or pension receipt. The judge declined to apply an ACAS uplift, finding that the basic requirements of the ACAS Code had been complied with. The total award ordered was £17,918.57.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £3,150 plus compensatory award of £13,445.57. Respondent did not present a response, attend the hearing or adduce evidence; the burden of proving a fair reason for dismissal was not discharged. | Upheld | — | £16,596 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Damages of 5 weeks' net pay (5 x £344.60) under the statutory minimum notice period in s.86 ERA 1996, which overrode the contractual 4-week notice period. | Upheld | — | £1,723 |
| Breach of contract | Listed on gov.uk as a separate Breach of Contract claim; the tribunal addressed the breach of the notice provision in the contract of employment as part of the wrongful dismissal claim. No separate remedy figure was attributed. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,919
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,150
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £13,446
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 SI 1994/1623
- Enable Care and Home Support Ltd v Pearson EAT 0366/09
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary & Grievance Procedures
- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.