Case 2217763/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Maridel Baltero v Andrea Greystoke (deceased) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2217763/2024
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Watton Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Maridel Baltero
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a housekeeper from 3 November 2013 to 16 November 2023. The respondent died before the final hearing, and no representative attended for the respondent. The tribunal considered which claims could proceed after the respondent's death and recorded that the successful claims would proceed to a remedy hearing.
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded. It found that performance was the principal reason for dismissal, but was not satisfied on the evidence that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was no longer capable of performing her duties. It also found there had been no adequate consultation, no reasonable investigation, no warning, and that dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses.
The tribunal upheld the claim for wages for 13 to 16 November 2023, the itemised pay statement claim, and the claim for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. It dismissed the statutory notice and redundancy pay claims, and dismissed the written particulars and pension auto-enrolment claims on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded; remedy was reserved for a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim for wrongful dismissal or breach of contract based on failure to give the statutory minimum notice period was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for breach of contract by unlawful deductions from wages from 13 to 16 November 2023 well-founded; remedy was reserved. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal did not find that redundancy was the principal reason for ending employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim concerning written particulars of employment was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claim for failure to provide itemised pay statements was well-founded, but the tribunal said the remedy could not yet be calculated because the deductions made were unclear. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.206 ERA 1996
- section 9(1) Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.94 and s.98 ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- section 93 ERA 1996
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.