Case 3201816/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Dr A Arnott and Others — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201816/2020
- Decision date
- 11 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a receptionist/administrator at a GP partnership, was dismissed without notice on 7 February 2020 after an incident on 23 December 2019 involving Mr Sabry, the business manager. The tribunal found that she had asked to use 2 hours' TOIL to leave early, but had not explained to Mr Sabry the full father-in-law hospital situation, and when her request was refused the discussion became heated. The tribunal accepted that she had been under stress and that there had been a prior discussion with Ms Amedee about 2 hours' TOIL, but found that she did not present the matter to Mr Sabry as an emergency at the time.
On the facts found, the tribunal concluded that the claimant became verbally abusive. It found that she called Mr Sabry a joke and a laughing stock, and also accepted that she used the comments that he was a man not a mouse and a coward, but not the other alleged phrases. The tribunal held that the respondents conducted a reasonable investigation, that Dr Lawal's presence as note-taker did not make the process unfair on these facts, and that the appeal process was not unfair. Applying s98 Employment Rights Act 1996, the Burchell test, and the range of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the dismissal was fair. It also found that, even if there had been procedural failings, the claimant would have been dismissed in any event.
The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted later-produced evidence, including the hospital letter, as showing that the claimant had in fact been dealing with a stressful and relatively urgent childcare problem, even if she had not communicated the full details to the respondents. Looking at what had actually happened, the tribunal held that her conduct was serious and justified dismissal, but did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract justifying dismissal without notice. The claimant was therefore entitled to four weeks' net pay, but the monetary amount was not fixed in the judgment. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed; the tribunal found the dismissal fair under s98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell/range of reasonable responses approach. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Upheld; the tribunal found the claimant was entitled to four weeks' net pay, but the amount was not quantified in the judgment and was left to the parties or a further remedy hearing if needed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Withdrawn by the claimant; the judgment notes this was in substance a claim about wages allegedly unpaid for pre-booked holidays on 24 and 31 December 2019. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1982] IRLR 439
- Sainsburys v Hitt [2003] IRLR 2
- range of reasonable responses test
- repudiatory breach of contract
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.