Case 2501049/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Fermin v Priory Healthcare Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501049/2022
- Decision date
- 17 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Appearances
- Venue
- Middlesbrough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Fermin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Middlesbrough on 14 and 15 February 2023, Employment Judge Aspden found that Mrs A Fermin’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. The tribunal also found her complaint that Priory Healthcare Limited breached her contract of employment by dismissing her without notice was well founded.
The tribunal did not determine the substantive remedy for those claims in this judgment. It recorded that remedy would be dealt with at a separate hearing unless the parties reached agreement. The only quantified sum in the decision was an order that the respondent pay the claimant £42 in respect of her preparation time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed well founded. Remedy was left to a separate hearing unless the parties reached agreement. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint that the respondent breached the contract of employment by dismissing the claimant without notice well founded. Remedy was left to a separate hearing unless the parties reached agreement. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £42
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.