Case 3200522/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Henrietta Thomas v DMP Healthcare Ltd (Bluebell Nursing and Residential Care Home) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200522/2024
- Decision date
- 18 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Illing Members
- Venue
- East London
- Panel members
- Ms M Daniels, Mr S Woodhouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Henrietta Thomas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and that she was unfairly dismissed. It also held that the breach of contract complaint concerning notice pay was well-founded, finding that the respondent was not entitled to dismiss without notice because the claimant's actions did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract in the circumstances identified.
The Tribunal dismissed the direct age discrimination and direct sex discrimination complaints. It considered the alleged acts, including dismissal, management meetings, alleged contempt, the pace of the disciplinary process, provision of documents, and alleged falsification of statements, and was not satisfied that there were primary facts from which it could determine that discrimination had taken place.
The holiday pay complaint was recorded as resolved before the hearing, and the reserved judgment stated that the holiday pay complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. No remedy figures are stated in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reserved judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The supplied PDF text is truncated, so detailed unfair dismissal reasoning from the middle of the judgment is not fully visible. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as breach of contract in relation to notice pay and concludes that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that direct age discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that direct sex discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the holiday pay claim was resolved prior to the hearing, while the reserved judgment also states that the holiday pay complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- burden of proof
- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.