Case 2301904/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Hills v Dr S Anand trading as Dentalessence — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301904/2024
- Decision date
- 24 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Hills
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mrs E Hills's notice pay claim. It found that she was entitled to one month's notice but had only been given two weeks' notice, so the respondent was ordered to pay the balance of the one-month notice entitlement after crediting the two weeks already paid.
The unfair dismissal claim did not proceed on the merits because the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear it, Mrs Hills not having two years' service. The written record therefore records no substantive finding on dismissal fairness.
The remaining disability claims were dismissed as not well-founded. Those claims were direct disability discrimination, disability-related harassment, and breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one month's notice, but had only been given two weeks' notice, so the respondent must pay the balance after deducting the two weeks already paid. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have two years' service. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment claim found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments claim found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.