Case 3200567/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Susan Masters v Liberty Carers Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2018
- Case reference
- 3200567/2018
- Decision date
- 21 March 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs. A Berry, Mr. P. Quinn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Susan Masters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Susan Masters was employed by Liberty Carers Limited from January 2012 until her dismissal in November 2017. The tribunal found that she was a disabled person at the relevant times by reason of bowel cancer, diverticulitis and a hernia, and that the respondent knew or reasonably ought to have known of those impairments. At the start of submissions the claimant withdrew her direct age discrimination complaint, which the tribunal recorded as dismissed on withdrawal.
The section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint failed because, although the tribunal accepted that the claimant’s sickness absences arose from her medical conditions, it found that the dismissal was not influenced by those absences. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed mainly to cut costs and because the Compliance Officer role was expected to diminish with the planned introduction of the PASSsystem and the use of zero-hours workers. It therefore concluded that the protected-disability-related absence was not the reason for the treatment complained of.
The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal within section 98 and section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but held that the process was unfair because there was no warning of redundancy, no consultation before dismissal, no proper consideration or offer of suitable alternative employment, and no effective appeal process. It found that the claimant was dismissed at the meeting on 8 November 2017 and that the later written confirmation did not cure the defects.
For compensation, the tribunal made a Polkey assessment under Andrews v Software 2000 Limited and concluded that, if a fair procedure had been followed, the claimant would probably have remained in part-time work until the end of April 2018 and would then have been dismissed in any event once the PASSsystem was fully in place. Remedy was left to a later hearing, and no monetary award was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Withdrawn by the claimant at the start of submissions; the tribunal recorded the complaint as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled and that the respondent knew or ought to have known of her disability, but found the dismissal was not because of sickness absence arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was redundancy, but held that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because there was no warning, no meaningful consultation, no proper consideration of suitable alternative employment, and no appeal. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- section 98 ERA 1996
- section 139(1)(b) ERA 1996
- Safeway Stores v Burrell
- Murray v Foyle Meats
- Williams v Compair Maxam
- Mugford v Midland Bank
- Fulcrum Pharma (Europe) v Bonassera
- Foley v Post Office and HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- West Midlands Co-Operative Society v Tipton
- London Central Bus Company Ltd v Manning
- Andrews v Software 2000 Limited
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
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.