Case 2414497/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O Whittaker v Hirst Family Trading Company Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414497/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss O Whittaker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss O Whittaker succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal held that she would not have been fairly dismissed in any event under the Polkey no-difference rule. The tribunal also found, for the purposes of sections 122 and 123(6) of the ERA 1996, that the claimant caused her dismissal and that her conduct was culpable and blameworthy, so the basic and compensatory award was reduced by 100%.
The wrongful dismissal claim for unpaid 2-weeks' notice pay was dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant had committed a repudiatory breach of contract entitling Hirst Family Trading Company Limited to summarily terminate the contract. The dismissal claim therefore failed on the notice-pay complaint.
The claimant succeeded on her complaint under section 93 of the ERA 1996 because the respondent did not provide a written statement giving particulars of the reasons for dismissal within 14 days of 17 August 2021. The tribunal ordered an award of 2 weeks' pay for that complaint. It also found that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment under section 1 of the ERA 1996 and ordered 4 weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
A claim brought under Regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was dismissed on withdrawal. By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £576 within two weeks of 11 October 2022. The interest notice recorded that, if unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, interest would accrue at 8% per annum from 15 October 2022.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded, but applied the Polkey no-difference rule and then reduced the basic and compensatory award by 100% under sections 122 and 123(6) of the ERA 1996 because the claimant caused her dismissal and her conduct was culpable and blameworthy. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had committed a repudiatory breach of contract entitling the respondent to summarily terminate the contract, so the claim for unpaid 2-weeks' notice pay was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under section 93 of the ERA 1996 for a written statement giving particulars of the reasons for dismissal. The tribunal found the respondent had not provided the statement within 14 days of 17 August 2021 and ordered 2 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £192 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment under section 1 of the ERA 1996. The tribunal ordered 4 weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £384 |
| Working time regulations | The claim brought under Regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £576
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- Polkey no-difference rule
- s.122 ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.93 ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Regulation 12 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.