Case 2302341/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302341/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mason Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Montrieux began work as a housekeeper on 2 January 2012 and the tribunal found that she was employed on a joint basis by Mr and Mrs Aiken, not by Mr Aiken alone. It relied on the offer and amendment letters, the way the household was run, the joint bank account from which wages were paid, and Mrs Aiken’s direct involvement in interviewing her and supervising her day-to-day work. On that basis, Mr Aiken’s death on 24 March 2019 did not frustrate the contract.
The tribunal rejected redundancy. It found no genuine diminution in the need for housekeeping work after Mr Aiken’s death: the house remained the same, the claimant’s duties had not materially changed, and the fact that Mrs Aiken now lived alone or later used a cleaner for three hours a week did not show a reduced need for housekeeping. It also gave no weight to the fact that Mr Aiken had considered redundancy in 2018, because the position had to be assessed at the time of dismissal.
The tribunal did find that there was a breakdown in working relations amounting to SOSR. It found the relationship between the claimant and Mrs Aiken had become extremely strained and difficult, and that Mr Aiken had effectively mediated between them while alive. However, dismissal was unfair because the claimant was not properly consulted or warned before the employment ended. The tribunal said that, although this was a domestic employer in a grieving family, the available support and administrative resources meant some procedure should have been followed after seven years’ service.
On remedy, the tribunal held that the claimant’s statutory redundancy payment of £4,846.17 extinguished any basic award. It made a compensatory award of £765.23, representing two weeks’ net pay, because it found the claimant would have been dismissed in any event and allowed only for the likely consultation period under Polkey. It also upheld the notice claim, awarding seven weeks’ gross pay of £3,230.77 for failure to give notice or pay in lieu. The tribunal’s total award was £3,996.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that Ms Montrieux was employed jointly by Mr and Mrs Aiken, so Mr Aiken’s death on 24 March 2019 did not frustrate the contract. It rejected redundancy, but found SOSR because the relationship with Mrs Aiken had broken down and Mr Aiken had previously mediated between them. Dismissal was unfair because there was no prior consultation or warning, although the tribunal held that dismissal would have happened in any event and limited compensation to two weeks’ net pay under Polkey. The statutory redundancy payment already made meant no basic award was payable. | Upheld | — | £765 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the contract was not frustrated and that the respondent failed to give the required seven weeks’ notice or pay in lieu. It awarded seven weeks’ gross pay as damages, described in the reasons as breach of contract / monies in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £3,231 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,996
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £765
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- frustration of the employment contract
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.123(4) ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
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.