Case 2500955/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Kelly Park Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500955/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Members
- Panel members
- Ms A Tarn, Ms E Wyles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by the Newcastle Employment Tribunal by CVP on 16 September and 18 November 2024 before Employment Judge Martin, sitting with members Ms A Tarn and Ms E Wyles. The claimant, Ms A Dolan, appeared in person and the respondent, Kelly Park Limited, was represented by Mr P Warnes, Employment Consultant.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and dismissed it. It also accepted the claimant’s separate complaint that the respondent failed to permit time off for dependent leave, and recorded that this claim was well founded.
The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing, including on remedy. Although the dependent-leave complaint succeeded, the tribunal awarded no compensation in respect of it, so no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment describes this as a complaint of failure to permit time off for dependent leave. The tribunal found it well founded but awarded no compensation. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.