Case 2200073/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend or represented For the v Mr A Graham, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200073/2020
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend or represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Boots Management Services Ltd from 8 July 2019 to 17 November 2019. She was dismissed on 13 November 2019 during her probationary period after numerous complaints and concerns about her performance. The tribunal found that she was paid one week's notice in accordance with her contract of employment.
The probation review took place in the claimant's absence after it had been rescheduled once because she said she felt too unwell to attend. The tribunal recorded that she was given a full opportunity to make written representations for the review hearing. She appealed, but did not cooperate with the appeal process, and the appeal was dismissed.
In its reasons, the tribunal said the claimant's claim was not one of unfair dismissal but of wrongful dismissal, but it ultimately found that the respondent dismissed her on the grounds of performance during probation and did so in accordance with the contract. On that basis, and because her contractual notice pay had been paid in full, the breach of contract claim failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal treated the pleaded issue as a contractual notice-pay dispute and also referred in its reasons to wrongful dismissal, but the formal judgment dismissed the breach of contract claim. It found the claimant had been paid one week's notice in full under her contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.