Case 2405591/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Williams v Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405591/2018
- Decision date
- 30 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs M Williams' claim of unfair dismissal against Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust was well-founded. The finding was based on an unfair procedural delay in the disciplinary process.
The tribunal expressly applied the principles of Polkey v A E Dayton Services and found that the delay made no material difference to the outcome of the process. On that basis, it made no monetary award in the claimant's favour despite upholding the unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim was found not to be well-founded and was dismissed. The written judgment records the outcomes but does not set out fuller written reasons, noting that reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded because of an unfair procedural delay in the disciplinary process, but made no monetary award after applying Polkey because the delay made no material difference to the outcome. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v A E Dayton Services
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.