Case 2407617/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Carol Farren v Millom Network Centre Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407617/2023
- Decision date
- 8 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Carol Farren
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Carol Farren worked for Millom Network Centre Ltd as a cook from 21 December 2020 until her dismissal effective 5 May 2023. The respondent said the dismissal was for gross misconduct arising from kitchen cleanliness, food safety records, attitude to senior management, and alleged derogatory comments. The tribunal accepted that there had been concerns about food safety procedures and that the claimant was dyslexic, but it also found that the respondent did not give her a fair opportunity to answer the allegations before deciding to dismiss her.
The tribunal found that the respondent had no valid investigation and intentionally excluded the claimant from the disciplinary and dismissal process. It accepted that she was given a verbal warning about kitchen cleanliness around 17/18 April 2023, but there was no proper record of that meeting or the evidence said to justify it. The claimant was then dismissed following a trustee meeting on 25 April 2023 at which she was absent and unrepresented, and the later appeal did not cure the earlier defects because it was only a review of the original decision.
The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded. The tribunal held that the respondent's process was not merely unreasonable but effectively non-existent, and that there was no reliable evidence to support the allegations about the claimant's attitude, lack of respect, or derogatory comments. It also found that the claimant's failure to engage fully with new food safety procedures had to be considered in light of her dyslexia and the inadequate retraining she received after returning to work.
On remedy, the tribunal assessed a basic award of £532, a compensatory award of £2,145.94 for two months' net pay, and £50 for loss of statutory rights. It said the respondent's failure to comply with the ACAS Code would justify a 25% uplift, but that was offset by a 25% reduction for the claimant's blameworthy conduct, leaving the basic award unchanged. The tribunal also upheld the wrongful dismissal claim, finding a breach of contract and awarding £532 for two weeks' gross notice pay, making a total award of £3,259.94.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the dismissal unfair because there was no valid investigation or fair hearing. The basic award of £532 was increased by 25% for ACAS Code non-compliance and then reduced by 25% for the claimant's blameworthy conduct, leaving the basic award unchanged; the compensatory award was £2,145.94 and £50 was awarded for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £2,728 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal treated this as notice pay / breach of contract and found the respondent was in breach when it dismissed the claimant without notice. Damages were assessed at two weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £532 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,260
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £532
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,146
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.94(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Post Office v Foley
- J Sainsbury v Hitt
- British Leyland (UK) Ltd v Swift
- HSBC Bank Plc v Madden
- Jagex Ltd v McCambridge
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd
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.