Case 2304088/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Fearon v Medway Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304088/2017
- Decision date
- 23 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Fearon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Ferguson in London South on 19 to 20 September 2019, held that Mrs J Fearon’s complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded. The judgment does not set out the full merits reasoning in the written record provided, because the decision was given orally and written reasons were not supplied.
The Claimant’s complaint of wrongful dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment therefore records no merits determination on that complaint.
Remedy was not determined at this stage. The Tribunal directed that remedy be listed for a separate hearing with a three-hour estimate. In the meantime, it made limited findings relevant to compensation: it rejected the Respondent’s argument that, but for the unfair dismissal, the Claimant would have moved to part-time work before retirement, and it recorded that there would be no adjustment under section 124A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment records that this complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.