Case 2221249/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Fatmata Kamara v ISS Mediclean Ltd T/A ISS Facility Services Healthcare — 2025
- Case reference
- 2221249/2024
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Watton Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Fatmata Kamara
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after an incident on 14 December 2023 involving a student physiotherapist in an area the claimant was cleaning. The respondent investigated, held a disciplinary hearing, dismissed the claimant, and upheld the dismissal on appeal.
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded. It found the respondent's decision fell within the reasonable range of responses, taking account of the nature of the misconduct, the hospital setting, and the claimant's role.
For notice pay, the tribunal decided for itself that the claimant was guilty of conduct so serious that the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice. The holiday pay claim also failed because the claimant agreed that the outstanding holiday pay had been paid.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant was guilty of conduct so serious that the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The parties agreed that outstanding holiday pay had been paid in July 2024 after proceedings were issued; the payslip showed holiday pay of 321.41 net and 419.40 gross. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Dada v Metal Box Co Ltd 1974 ICR 559
- 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.