Case 3314053/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Garnett v Rothalcourt Ltd and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314053/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Via CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs R Garnett
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs R Garnett brought claims for direct age discrimination, statutory redundancy payment, unfair dismissal, breach of contract for notice pay, and unlawful deduction from wages against Rothalcourt Ltd and Mr M Daniels. The tribunal held that the claimant had sufficient continuity of service, including continuity involving Northampton Laser Clinic and Rothalcourt Ltd as associated employers, and that redundancy was the principal reason for dismissal on 28 February 2019.
The direct age discrimination claim was not upheld. The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed for redundancy in circumstances that made the dismissal procedurally unfair, and it found no basis for a Polkey reduction. It also accepted that the claimant had not acted unreasonably in mitigation: she had applied for receptionist roles, registered with agencies, used job websites, and undertaken IT training, and the respondent had not shown an unreasonable failure to mitigate loss.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £607.50, a compensatory award of £4,459.99 for unfair dismissal, £173 for one further week's notice pay, and £70 for reimbursement of prescription and eye test charges. Within the unfair dismissal award, £4,159.99 was treated as the prescribed element and £300 was awarded for loss of statutory rights. The combined monetary awards total £5,310.49.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination was not upheld; the tribunal found the dismissal was not on grounds of age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £607.50 after finding over three years' continuity of service. | Upheld | — | £608 |
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal for redundancy was found to be procedurally unfair. No Polkey reduction was made. The basic award was £0; the compensatory award was £4,459.99, made up of £4,159.99 for loss of earnings and £300 for loss of statutory rights. The first page records a prescribed element period of 1 March 2019 to 8 September 2020, while the reasons describe the compensatory award as six months' loss from 1 March to 31 August 2019. | Upheld | — | £4,460 |
| Breach of contract | The claim succeeded in relation to notice pay. The tribunal held the claimant had already received two weeks' notice in total and awarded one further week's notice pay of £173. | Upheld | — | £173 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in failing to reimburse agreed prescription and eye test charges, and awarded £70. | Upheld | — | £70 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,310
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,460
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.123 ERA 1996
- duty to mitigate loss
- s.86(1)(b) ERA 1996
- 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.
- 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 .
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.