Case 2408868/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Amanda Gordon v Currys plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408868/2021
- Decision date
- 8 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Thompson
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Amanda Gordon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningCurrys Group Limited was substituted as the respondent in the proceedings. The Tribunal recorded that the case was heard at Liverpool Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Thompson sitting alone.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, finding it was not well-founded. It also dismissed the breach of contract complaint relating to notice pay as not well-founded. The written judgment records only the outcomes, with reasons having been given orally unless written reasons were requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal pursuant to section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and states it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint related to notice pay and was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.