Case 2504297/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Harker v Marine Management Organisation — 2020
- Case reference
- 2504297/2019
- Decision date
- 19 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
- Venue
- North Shields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Harker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Harker did not attend the final hearing on 19 February 2020. About 12 minutes before the scheduled start, she emailed the tribunal asking for the hearing to be cancelled because of deteriorating mental health and because she could not afford legal representation. The Employment Judge checked on her absence, heard the respondent's submissions, and decided to proceed.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for wrongful dismissal, described in the judgment as a claim for breach of contract. It found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the respondent was entitled under the contract to terminate on notice and had paid four weeks' pay in lieu of notice. The judge held that the claimant therefore suffered no recoverable loss.
The tribunal also said that, even if the termination had not complied with the contract, damages would in any event be limited to the notice period under Hadley v Baxendale. The judge observed that the case was, in substance, a disguised unfair dismissal claim, but the claimant did not have the requisite two years' qualifying service, so unfair dismissal protection was not available. The respondent's costs application was noted, but the tribunal said it was premature and would not be dealt with at that stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment uses 'wrongful dismissal' and 'breach of contract' interchangeably. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- Hadley v Baxendale
- interests of justice
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.