Case 2305128/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Gemma Mortland v Islanders Vets — 2020

Case reference: 2305128/2019
Decision date: 3 December 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Rahman
Venue: London South

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Gemma Mortland

Respondent

Islanders Vets

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Claimant resigned on 7 October 2019 and said she would work the following two months, but would appreciate being released sooner if possible. The Respondent then wrote on 7 October 2019 that it would release her sooner, and on 9 October 2019 emailed that her last day was that day. The tribunal found there was no acceptance by the Claimant of those terms and held that the Respondent's communications amounted to a wrongful dismissal, entitling her to notice pay. Because the Claimant obtained new employment from 28 October 2019, the notice loss was limited to one month rather than two.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for 1-9 October 2019. The order was for £573 gross, with the Claimant to account for any tax or national insurance deductions; the judgment also described the October deduction as £441.25 net.	Upheld	—	£573
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal held that the Respondent's communications on 7 and 9 October 2019 amounted to a wrongful dismissal and that the Claimant was entitled to notice pay. The award was reduced to one month because she obtained new employment from 28 October 2019.	Upheld	—	£1,138
Holiday pay	The tribunal found that the Claimant had accrued 3.5 days' holiday pay for 1 September to 9 October 2019. The award was calculated net of tax using an hourly rate of £8.21 and an 8-hour day.	Upheld	—	£230

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,941; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.