Case 3314456/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314456/2019
- Decision date
- 17 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs Louise Atkins, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Tesco Stores Limited. The case was heard at Bury St Edmunds on 17 February 2020 before Employment Judge Laidler, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr C Kelly, Counsel.
The tribunal found that Mrs Atkins was dismissed by reason of capability. It held that capability was a potentially fair reason for dismissal within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that Tesco acted fairly in all the circumstances in treating that reason as justification for dismissal.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claim of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. No remedy award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of capability, which was treated as a potentially fair reason under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.