Case 2410417/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sarah Holcroft v Applegarth Hotel Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410417/2019
- Decision date
- 24 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Carlisle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sarah Holcroft
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms Sarah Holcroft was unfairly dismissed by Applegarth Hotel Limited. The case concerned a confrontation on 25 April 2019 between the claimant and Mrs Clancy, after which the claimant was dismissed by email from Mrs Mumford on 27 April 2019. The tribunal found that both women were responsible for the heated argument, that the claimant used insulting language, including calling Mrs Clancy a "stupid fat fucking cow", and that Mrs Clancy also swore at the claimant and told her to leave the hotel.
On the employer's process, the tribunal found that Mrs Mumford relied on what Mr and Mrs Clancy told her and on a short CCTV clip, but did not conduct any reasonable investigation. The tribunal found there was no meaningful attempt to obtain the claimant's account, no disciplinary hearing, and no appeal hearing. It also found that the dismissal decision had been predetermined before any fair procedure took place, and that Mrs Mumford's interpretation of the CCTV was one-sided.
Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal concluded that the respondent had not satisfied the requirements of a fair misconduct dismissal. It held that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The tribunal then found that the claimant had contributed significantly to her dismissal and reduced any award by 35% for contributory fault. It also applied a Polkey reduction of 35% to the compensatory award only, and listed the case for a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability was determined only; the case was listed for a separate remedy hearing, so no monetary award was fixed in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- band of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Post Office v Foley / HSBC Bank v Madden
- Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- Ulsterbus Limited v Henderson
- Polkey v A E Dayton
- Duffy v Yeomans
- Nelson v BBC (No. 2)
- Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust v Crabtree
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.