Case 3202649/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Gard v Sesnha Care Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202649/2019
- Decision date
- 23 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrowclough
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Gard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Barrowclough on 17 September 2020, found that Miss D Gard was unfairly dismissed by Sesnha Care Limited. The judgment records that her claim succeeded and that the tribunal applied a 50% reduction because it considered that she partially caused or contributed to her own dismissal.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award based on 9 weeks' wages at the agreed weekly figure of £380, giving £3,420 before reduction and £1,710 after the 50% deduction. It also awarded a compensatory element for loss of statutory rights of £250 and 38 weeks' wages at £380, giving £14,440 before reduction and £7,345 after the 50% deduction.
The total compensation payable was therefore £9,055. The judgment also states that the Recoupment Regulations applied, with a prescribed period from 1 December 2019 to 17 September 2020 and a prescribed sum of £7,220.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It found the claimant partially caused or contributed to her own dismissal and reduced compensation by 50%. | Upheld | — | £9,055 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,055
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,710
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,345
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.