Case 2504384/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mitchell v Five Star Taxis (Newcastle) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2504384/2019
- Decision date
- 15 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
- Venue
- Newcastle Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs V Mitchell worked as a desk clerk for Five Star Taxis (Newcastle) Ltd from 2 March 2009 to 29 October 2019. The tribunal accepted that her service was continuous from 2009, found that she was suspended on full pay on 18 October 2019 after a customer complaint, and found that on 24 October 2019 she was told to resign or be dismissed. It also found that the respondent had never given her a written statement of particulars of employment.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct, but held that the respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation, had not held a proper disciplinary meeting, had not given the claimant a chance to explain her side, and had not offered an appeal. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell/Graham line of authority, it held that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses and therefore unfair. Having listened to the telephone recording, the tribunal found the claimant's conduct was at most a little brusque and did not amount to repudiatory breach or justify summary dismissal.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,861.48 after a 15% reduction for the claimant's conduct, and a compensatory award of £5,213.96. In calculating compensation it used ten weeks of net loss, added £646 for self-employment start-up costs and £350 for loss of statutory rights, applied a 25% ACAS uplift for unreasonable failure to follow the Code, added a four-week award of £1,346.44 for the failure to provide written particulars under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, and then reduced the compensatory award by a further 15% for contributory conduct.
The tribunal also upheld the wrongful dismissal / notice-pay claim and awarded £2,834.10 for ten weeks' notice under section 86 ERA 1996. It upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim for the seven suspension days from 21-25 and 28-29 October 2019, awarding £467.97 because the suspension letter had promised full pay. The holiday pay claim under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct, but held the dismissal unfair because there was no reasonable investigation, no proper disciplinary meeting, no opportunity for the claimant to explain her side, and no appeal. | Upheld | — | £8,075 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice-pay claim for ten weeks' notice under section 86 ERA 1996. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the claimant's conduct amounted to repudiatory breach or gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. | Upheld | — | £2,834 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant was suspended on full pay, but received no pay for the seven suspension days identified by the tribunal (21-25, 28 and 29 October 2019). | Upheld | — | £468 |
| Holiday pay | The regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998 claim was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,378
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,861
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,214
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell
- Graham
- Iceland Frozen Foods range of reasonable responses
- Polkey
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- Nelson v BBC (No. 2)
- ACAS Code of Practice (2015)
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.86 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.