Case 3300365/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Joyce-Ludlow v Sunrise Senior Living Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300365/2017
- Decision date
- 10 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Joyce-Ludlow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant’s application for reconsideration dated 22 December 2017 because there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The judge said the matters raised in the claimant’s solicitor’s letter had already been taken into account when deciding the Polkey reduction.
In the reasons, the tribunal said it had formed the view that there was a good chance that no improvement would have occurred in the team relationships and that a fair dismissal would have occurred on or around 27 October 2016 in any event. That assessment was based on the state of the team relationship before 15 August 2016, when there were already serious issues within the team.
The tribunal noted that by 10 August 2016 one team member had verbally resigned, another was off sick, and another was looking for another job. On that basis, it considered it unrealistic to expect steps taken by the respondent at that stage to have repaired the team relationship, and it held that a 60% Polkey reduction was appropriate.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment determined only the claimant’s application for reconsideration of the original decision. The application, dated 22 December 2017, was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
- Polkey reduction
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.