Case 2410177/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Second Claimant: Third Claimant: Mrs W Roberts Ms E Sumner Mrs K Tomlinson First v Second Respondent: Prime Care (UK) Ltd t/a Sylvan Home Care Service Mr G Borkhatria — 2023
- Case reference
- 2410177/2022
- Decision date
- 3 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
- Panel members
- Mr Williamson, Mr Dobson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Second Claimant: Third Claimant: Mrs W Roberts Ms E Sumner Mrs K Tomlinson First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that all claims of post-employment victimisation were dismissed on withdrawal, and that all claims against the Second Respondent were also dismissed on withdrawal. No separate monetary award was made for those withdrawn claims.
In respect of the First Claimant, the tribunal held that the Respondent unfairly dismissed her and ordered payment of a basic award of £3,854.25. It stated that no compensatory award was payable.
The tribunal also found that the First Claimant was wrongfully dismissed, but no damages were payable for that wrongful dismissal. The Second Claimant's and Third Claimant's complaints of constructive unfair dismissal were each found not well founded and dismissed. The written notice also stated that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the award was not paid within 14 days, at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum, but no separate interest sum was quantified.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Post-employment victimisation claims were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The First Claimant succeeded on unfair dismissal; the tribunal awarded a basic award only and no compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £3,854 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The First Claimant was found to have been wrongfully dismissed, but no damages were payable. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The Second Claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The Third Claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,854
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,854
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.