Case 1807605/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Howard v Mrs DMW Proudlove AT A HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1807605/2023
- Decision date
- 13 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedMrs S Howard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Lancaster (sitting alone) declared that the claimant, a personal assistant/carer for the disabled respondent since 1 September 2001, was constructively unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal found the claimant resigned in response to the respondent's accusation that she had filled in time sheets fraudulently and the refusal to retract that accusation, which - in circumstances where the allegation could not have been objectively justified - was a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
While the unilateral alteration of contractual terms as to hours and travel pay might in other circumstances have constituted some other substantial reason, the accusations of fraud went far beyond that and could not have been objectively justified. The Tribunal indicated a basic award of at least £6,935.25 calculated on at least 18.75 weekly hours at £13.21/hour for 28 weeks (16 years at 1.5 weeks plus 4 years at 1 week), £450 for loss of statutory rights, plus loss of earnings and pension contributions subject to the s.124 cap (the claimant calculated this at £14,801.57).
Remedy was adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Claims and outcomes
1 claim adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.