Case 2301513/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Dodson v 1) Gatwick Hotels Limited 2) Silver Hopkins Hotel Management Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301513/2017
- Decision date
- 18 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Davies Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Dodson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London South hearing on 19 March 2019, Acting Regional Employment Judge P Davies found that Mrs C Dodson was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by Silver Hopkins Hotel Management Ltd. The judgment ordered the Second Respondent to pay £9,379.68 in respect of those dismissal findings and recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 as amended did not apply.
The tribunal also found that Gatwick Hotels Limited and Silver Hopkins Hotel Management Limited were liable for failure to consult pursuant to the TUPE transfer duties. It ordered the First and Second Respondents to pay £2,342.08 for that breach. The bottom-line monetary outcome recorded in the judgment is £11,721.76.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment found the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the Second Respondents. The award of £9,379.68 was made for the dismissal findings and was not split between the unfair and wrongful dismissal conclusions. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed by the Second Respondents. The award of £9,379.68 was made for the dismissal findings and was not split between the unfair and wrongful dismissal conclusions. | Upheld | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The First and Second Respondents were ordered to pay £2,342.08 for failure to consult pursuant to the TUPE transfer duties. | Upheld | — | £2,342 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,722
- across all upheld claims
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.