Case 3300381/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Lisa Wilkinson v Miss Gurshital Gill — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300381/2023
- Decision date
- 3 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Lisa Wilkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Lisa Wilkinson brought claims for unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday pay against Miss Gurshital Gill. The tribunal found that she had started work on 15 January 2018 and had been dismissed with an effective date of termination of 16 September 2022. The case was heard by Employment Judge Anderson sitting alone.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not capability. It found that the investigation was limited at best, that nothing was put to the claimant before dismissal, that there was no disciplinary hearing in any form, and that the dismissal decision had already been formed before the dismissal letter. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was unfair because the process and investigation fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
On remedy, the tribunal accepted that a fair dismissal could still have occurred in any event for Some Other Substantial Reason, namely the respondent's loss of trust in the claimant in the context of an intimate carer relationship. Compensation was therefore limited to one week's net pay of £213.12, uplifted by 10% for an unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code, giving a compensatory award of £234.43. The basic award was calculated on gross weekly pay of £217 multiplied by 1.5 and four years' service, producing £1,302.00. The tribunal did not reduce the basic award for contributory fault.
The unpaid holiday pay claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the holiday year began on 15 January under the signed contract and, accepting the respondent's evidence about leave taken, held that the claimant had used up her accrued holiday entitlement in 2022, including the paid Queen's Jubilee bank holiday. It therefore found that no holiday pay remained outstanding.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the investigation was limited at best, no allegations were put to the claimant before dismissal, and there was no disciplinary hearing. Remedy was limited after the tribunal found that a fair dismissal could have occurred in any event for SOSR arising from loss of trust in the care relationship. | Upheld | — | £1,536 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday year started on 15 January under the signed contract and accepted the respondent's evidence as to leave taken, including the paid Jubilee bank holiday, so no outstanding holiday entitlement remained. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,536
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,302
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £234
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- BHS v Burchell
- Sainsbury's Supermarket v Hitt
- Some Other Substantial Reason (SOSR)
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Dignity Funerals Ltd v Bruce
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.