Case 2204474/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2204474/2022
- Decision date
- 10 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, a Childcare Assistant and Project Manager at a small charity, brought claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages following her dismissal on 26 January 2022. Earlier whistleblowing claims had been dismissed for non-compliance with Unless Orders. By consent, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £1,993.90 for unpaid wages, increased by two weeks' gross pay (£270 x 2) under s.38 Employment Act 2002 because the Respondent had failed to provide a statement of particulars of employment as required by s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996.
On the unfair dismissal claim, Employment Judge Spencer, sitting alone, found that the Respondent reasonably believed the working relationship had broken down. The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had openly expressed distrust of senior staff and that attempts over two years to re-engage with her had not succeeded. While the disciplinary process was not perfect (the Claimant was not told dismissal was a possible outcome, and was not provided with notes of the disciplinary hearing before the appeal), the Tribunal found the process was reasonable in the context of a small charity of around 17 employees.
The Tribunal concluded that the relationship could not reasonably continue and that the dismissal was not unfair. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the relationship had broken down and the dismissal was not unfair. The disciplinary process was imperfect but reasonable in the context of a small charity. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent the Respondent was ordered to pay £1,993.90 for unpaid wages. Claimant later asserted the figure should be £2,147 but the award reflects what was agreed in Tribunal. | Upheld | — | £1,994 |
| Other | Failure to provide a statement of particulars of employment under s.1 ERA 1996. Under s.38 Employment Act 2002 the wages award was increased by two weeks gross pay (£270 x 2 = £540). | Upheld | — | £540 |
| Whistleblowing | Claims for whistleblowing dismissal and detriment had been dismissed earlier in the proceedings for non-compliance with Unless Orders. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,534
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.