Case 2301729/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I Carpenter v Caring Homes Healthcare Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301729/2020
- Decision date
- 21 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
- Panel members
- Mr M Cann, Mrs C Wickerstaff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs I Carpenter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Croydon, heard by CVP on 13-17 and 20 December 2021 before Employment Judge Self with Mr M Cann and Mrs C Wickerstaff, the Tribunal held that Mrs I Carpenter had been unfairly dismissed. The judgment states that any compensation would be reduced by 80% because of the Claimant's contributory fault.
The Tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination claim and the religious discrimination claim, stating that neither was well-founded. No monetary award or separate remedy figures are set out in the extracted text, so the only remedy-related finding available is the 80% reduction for contributory fault on the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal declared that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. It recorded that any compensation would be reduced by 80% on account of the Claimant's contributory fault, but no monetary figure was stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal found the disability discrimination claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The Tribunal found the religious discrimination claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.