Case 3310773/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K. Herbert v Main Group Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3310773/2022
- Decision date
- 27 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyes
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K. Herbert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Herbert was employed as office manager from 28 October 2018 under a contract requiring one month's notice. The tribunal accepted her account of the meeting on 20 May 2022, preferred her evidence and that of her sister Donna Anderson over the respondent's later account, and found that Thomas Swannell told her that she was sacked and to 'pack your kit and fuck off'. It rejected the respondent's later suspension and disciplinary narrative as a reliable account of what happened and found the later process had been put together after the dismissal.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct at that meeting. It accepted that the respondent had a potentially fair reason under section 98(2) ERA 1996, but held the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the claimant was summarily dismissed without warning, investigation, or any disciplinary procedure before the decision was made. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal concluded that the claimant's one-off heated remark was not gross misconduct and that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses.
On the notice pay issue, the tribunal held the dismissal was also a breach of contract / wrongful dismissal because the claimant was entitled to one month's notice and her conduct, viewed in context, was not a repudiatory breach. It noted that the contract and handbook distinguished gross misconduct from lesser misconduct and that the claimant's comment did not fall within the kind of conduct justifying summary dismissal. The holiday pay claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant had already used her 2020 entitlement and had been paid for 37.5 days' accrued holiday on termination, including 7 days for 2022, leaving no further sum due. The tribunal also found the written statement of particulars failed to specify the place of work under section 1(4)(h) ERA 1996 and awarded two weeks' pay for that failure, but the judgment does not set out a final aggregate monetary total.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed on 20 May 2022 and held that the dismissal was unfair. Remedy was left to a further hearing, including possible reductions for contributory conduct, Polkey, and any Acas Code adjustment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the summary dismissal was in breach of the one-month notice clause and was not justified by repudiatory breach or gross misconduct. It said the claimant was entitled to damages equivalent to one month's salary, but no cash figure is quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had used her 2020 holiday entitlement and had been paid in excess of her 2022 accrued entitlement, so no further holiday pay was due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the written statement of particulars did not comply with section 1(4)(h) ERA 1996 because it did not specify the place of work, and it awarded two weeks' pay for that failure, but no cash amount is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regs 13, 13A, 14, 17 and 30
- Harris and Russell Ltd v Slingsby
- Martin v Yeomen Aggregates Ltd
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.