Case 3304636/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Bonney v Diligent Care Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304636/2018
- Decision date
- 13 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Bonney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a former enhanced foster carer with the London Borough of Haringey, became a Project Manager for Diligent Care Services Ltd on 18 April 2016 when DCS was contracted to provide services at the home where she continued to live and care for X, Y and Z. Following an incident on 30 July 2017 involving X and the claimant's partner (also a DCS support worker), the respondent dismissed the claimant on 3 November 2017 on the basis that she had failed to report the incident, treating that as misconduct warranting dismissal. An internal appeal was unsuccessful.
On the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction: the claimant had not been an employee of Haringey within the meaning of the ERA 1996 before 18 April 2016, so she did not have the two years of continuous service required, and a TUPE-based continuity argument therefore failed. On the s.103A automatically unfair dismissal complaint, the Tribunal found that the dismissal was not by reason of any protected disclosure and that complaint was not well-founded.
The wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) complaint succeeded. The Tribunal found that the claimant had not in fact committed gross misconduct, so summary dismissal without notice was a breach of contract. Remedy for the breach of contract was listed to be determined at a further hearing on 22 October 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal complaint dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the London Borough of Haringey before 18 April 2016, so she did not have the two years' continuous service required under s.108 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996 found not well-founded. The Tribunal concluded the claimant was not dismissed for making a protected disclosure or protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) complaint well-founded. Remedy was listed to be determined at a separate hearing on 22 October 2024, so no monetary award is recorded in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Listed in the gov.uk categories but the visible portion of the judgment (which is reserved liability-only) does not record a discrete adjudication of an unlawful deduction from wages claim. Outcome unclear from the truncated text; confidence reduced accordingly. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- implied term of trust and confidence
- range of reasonable responses
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.