Case 2400497/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Mannion v Redbridge Associates Limited (trading as Smart Dental Care) HELD AT: Liverpool — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400497/2024
- Decision date
- 26 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Mannion
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Benson, sitting alone, found the complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded. The claimant was 56 at the date of dismissal with weekly gross pay of £427.35 and a basic award multiplier of 27.5.
The tribunal held it was just and equitable to reduce the basic award by 50% because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal, and that the claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, justifying a 50% reduction in the compensatory award. The claimant was paid 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice and started a new role on 15 September 2023 earning more per week net than in her role with the respondent, so had no continuing losses other than one fewer day's holiday per year (£85.47, reduced to £42.74 after the contributory conduct deduction). No ACAS uplift or reduction applied. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £5,876.06 (basic award) and £42.74 (compensatory award).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal upheld; basic award (£5,876.06) and compensatory award (£42.74) each reduced by 50% for the claimant's blameworthy conduct that caused or contributed to the dismissal. | Upheld | — | £5,919 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,919
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,876
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £43
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.