Case 2300083/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. S Rootes v Edward Harte Solicitors — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300083/2022
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. S Rootes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair conduct reason for dismissal, but the dismissal was unfair within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found substantive and procedural unfairness, including that one element of the Burchell test had not been met, that the investigation was directed by Mr Donnan rather than left to the investigator, and that prejudicial character statements were not sent to the claimant for response before the appeal outcome.
The tribunal declined to make a Polkey reduction. It found that the claimant had made comments to Miss Palmer on 9 June 2021 about gay women and Mrs Dawkins, and concluded that the basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal should be reduced by 75% for contributory conduct.
The claimant's breach of contract claim for 12 weeks' notice pay was dismissed. Applying the findings about the claimant's conduct, the tribunal found that she was guilty of misconduct entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. The holiday pay unlawful deduction complaint and itemised pay statement complaint were dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded. Remedy was reserved to a further hearing, and any basic and compensatory awards were to be reduced by 75% for contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unlawful deductions from wages for failure to pay holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of failure to provide an itemised pay statement was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes the claim as breach of contract and also as wrongful dismissal. The claimant sought 12 weeks' notice pay, but the tribunal found she was not entitled to notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Burchell test
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
- section 122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- range 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.