Case 3300192/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Gorbanova v Appletree Court Care Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300192/2017
- Decision date
- 5 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tuck
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Gorbanova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 5 September 2019, Employment Judge Tuck recorded that, by agreement, the claims against the first, second, fourth and fifth respondents were dismissed on withdrawal and that the claim would proceed against the third respondent only. The document is a case management record rather than a merits judgment, and it does not determine liability or remedy.
The parties agreed that, in light of Patel v Folkstone Nursing Home, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear an 'ordinary' unfair dismissal claim. The remaining case was directed to a final hearing on constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract, and the issues also included an unlawful deduction from wages claim covering wages, holiday pay and pension contributions between 5 September 2016 and 22 November 2016.
The record notes the claimant's case that she had been employed as a carer, that a dismissal letter dated 5 September 2016 was later revoked on appeal and reduced to a final written warning on 12 October 2016, and that she resigned on 22 November 2016 because the relationship of trust and confidence had broken down. No findings were made in this document on whether those matters amounted to constructive dismissal or unlawful deductions, and no remedy was assessed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The record states that the parties agreed the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear an 'ordinary' unfair dismissal claim following Patel v Folkstone Nursing Home. The claimant's constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were listed to proceed to a final hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.