Case 2503521/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Hillary v Mrs M Bignell t/a Mahon House Boarding Kennel and Cattery — 2019
- Case reference
- 2503521/2019
- Decision date
- 23 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Speker OBE
- Venue
- Teesside Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Hillary
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss L Hillary had worked at Mahon House Boarding Kennels and Cattery since 13 August 2003 and her employment transferred to Mrs M Bignell under TUPE. The tribunal found she had over 15 years' continuous service and was entitled to 12 weeks' notice, although the contract she signed in 2003 referred to 4 weeks. The respondent had raised a series of concerns during May to September 2018, including bedding, cleaning methods and an alleged failure to follow directions, and on 7 September 2018 Mrs Bignell issued what the tribunal treated as a final written warning.
On 11 September 2018 the claimant said she felt bullied after receiving the warning. The tribunal accepted the claimant's account of the later discussions with Mr Bignell and found that he had no formal role in the business, but was involved in discussions about how the matter should be handled. It found that those discussions were not a genuine investigation into the bullying allegation or into ways of repairing the relationship. The tribunal concluded that Mrs Bignell had already decided to end the employment and that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's allegation of bullying.
Applying s.98(1) and s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the respondent had not shown a fair reason for dismissal and had not acted reasonably in treating the matter as sufficient reason to dismiss. It found that a reasonable employer would have investigated the complaint, allowed time for matters to cool, and looked for constructive ways forward, particularly given the claimant's long service and the absence of any grievance procedure in the contract. The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded.
The notice claim also succeeded. The parties agreed that the claimant had been paid 4 weeks' notice but was entitled to 12 weeks' notice because of her length of service, so 8 weeks remained in dispute. The tribunal did not determine the amount at this stage and instead directed a separate remedy hearing to assess the sums due on both the unfair dismissal and notice claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal was admitted. The tribunal found the reason was the claimant's allegation that Mrs Bignell was bullying her, and that the respondent did not act reasonably under s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant had not been paid her full notice entitlement. The parties agreed she had received 4 weeks' notice but was entitled to 12 weeks; quantum was left to a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 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.