Case 2419573/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Atherton v Dr M Corrie, Ms K Robinson and Ms Hornby: the Partners of Commonfield Road Surgery — 2022
- Case reference
- 2419573/2020
- Decision date
- 4 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Atherton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cookson, sitting alone in Manchester by CVP, found that Ms L Atherton was unfairly dismissed contrary to s.94 of the ERA. The tribunal nonetheless concluded that there was a 100% chance she would have been dismissed even if a fair process had been followed.
On remedy, the tribunal found that Ms Atherton contributed 100% to her own dismissal and that it would not be just and equitable to award any compensation. No monetary award was made.
The tribunal also held that the respondent was entitled to dismiss Ms Atherton for gross misconduct, so her claim for damages for breach of contract was dismissed as not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that Ms Atherton was unfairly dismissed contrary to s.94 of the ERA. It also found there was a 100% chance she would have been dismissed even if a fair process had been followed, and that she contributed 100% to her own dismissal, so no compensation was awarded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to dismiss Ms Atherton for gross misconduct and found her claim for damages for breach of contract was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.94 ERA
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.