Case 2603799/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Tate v A Groom With A View Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2603799/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Members
- Panel members
- Mr G Edmondson, Mr J Purkis
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms L Tate
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing in Midlands (East) on 28, 30 and 31 March and 4 and 6 April 2022, before Employment Judge Camp with lay members Mr G Edmondson and Mr J Purkis, the tribunal held that Ms L Tate was unfairly dismissed under s100(1)(c) ERA 1996. It also held that there should be no reduction to any compensatory award under the Polkey principle, citing Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd and Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's detriment complaints under s44(1)(c) ERA 1996 that were designated a and b, but rejected those designated c, d and e. It also dismissed upon withdrawal the complaint under s100(1)(e) ERA 1996 and the detriment complaint under s44(1)(e) ERA 1996, under rules 51 and 52.
On the whistleblowing allegations, the tribunal found that the claimant had not made a relevant protected disclosure, so her complaints that she was dismissed and subjected to detriments because she had made one failed. In light of that finding, all complaints against Ms Lindsey Watson failed. The parties then agreed confidential settlement terms and confirmed that the claim was resolved, but no monetary award is set out in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal under s100(1)(c) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Detriment complaints under s44(1)(c) ERA 1996; complaints a and b succeeded, while c, d and e failed. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint under s100(1)(e) ERA 1996 withdrawn pursuant to rules 51 and 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under s44(1)(e) ERA 1996 withdrawn pursuant to rules 51 and 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Tribunal found no relevant protected disclosure; the dismissal and detriment complaints based on disclosure failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Polkey principle
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
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.