Case 2501666/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ngatia v Accord Healthcare Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501666/2023
- Decision date
- 13 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ngatia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form was presented on 5 July 2023 and alleged that Mr J Ngatia was summarily dismissed by Accord Healthcare Limited on 28 February 2023. The claim was sent to the respondent on 2 August 2023, but no response was entered in time, so the tribunal determined the liability issues under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. It noted that the burden is on the respondent to show the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal and that it was a potentially fair reason within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Because the respondent filed no response and put forward no reason for dismissal, the claimant’s unchallenged case was sufficient for the tribunal to uphold the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal also held that the complaint of wrongful dismissal was well founded. On the claimant’s unchallenged case, he was dismissed without notice, so the tribunal found that the respondent breached the contract of employment by dismissing him summarily. Remedy was not decided in this judgment and was left to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only in this judgment; remedy was to be determined at a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the unchallenged case was that the claimant was dismissed without notice; remedy was deferred. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.