Case 2201386/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Akers, counsel For the v Ms Noble, Senior manager, company secretary — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201386/2023
- Decision date
- 5 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Akers, counsel For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Susannah Doherty was employed by Sophia Webster Limited from 19 March 2018 and was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice on 16 September 2022. She had been absent from work from 27 July 2022, had submitted fit notes describing work-related stress or reactive anxiety, and had raised a grievance about the way she said she had been treated by Ms Butler and others in the business. The Tribunal found that the Respondent, a small company, had repeatedly tried to engage with her about both the grievance and the sickness absence, including inviting her to meetings and asking for a medical report and written submissions.
The Tribunal accepted that the period between the start of absence and dismissal was short, and described the case as not easy to decide. It also accepted that an employee absent through ill health has an obligation to communicate with the employer and keep it informed. The Claimant sent fit notes and lodged a grievance, but the Tribunal found that she did not otherwise engage meaningfully with the Respondent, did not provide information about how long she was likely to be absent, and did not attend the sickness absence review meeting despite being warned that a decision might be taken in her absence which could include termination.
The Tribunal did not accept that the Respondent's communications were heavy-handed. It found that the tone was generally sympathetic, at least initially, and that many of the emails were sent because the Claimant was not responding. It also found there was no medical or other evidence that she was too ill to engage, including by telephone or in writing, and that the grievance process had not been advanced in a way that enabled the Respondent to resolve matters. In those circumstances, and taking account of the size of the business, the Claimant's senior role, and the impact of uncertainty on the business and colleagues, the Tribunal held that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and was not unfair.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the dismissal on 16 September 2022, after illness-related absence and non-engagement with the employer's process, was not unfair within s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 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.