Case 3327864/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Ouple v Quantum Care Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3327864/2019
- Decision date
- 21 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reindorf
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Ouple
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs G Ouple worked for Quantum Care Ltd as a Relief Care Team Manager at Mayfair Lodge Care Home. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed her for conduct arising from two incidents in 2019: an incident on 11 February when she spoke loudly to paramedics attending resident RM and questioned their handling of him in front of his family, and an incident on 15 June when she was involved in RM's personal care after he refused assistance, helped move him into a wheelchair, and remained involved when four staff gave him care on the bed. The tribunal found that RM's hand injuries were caused during the 15 June incident and that the claimant knew the injuries were significant.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's complaints about delay in investigating the February incident, the absence of photographs, the treatment of the 14 and 15 June body maps, the point about RM's medication and alcohol, and the contention that the restraint allegation was not properly put to her. It held that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation, that Mr Edgley genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct on reasonable grounds, and that he took account of her mitigation, length of service and clean disciplinary record. The tribunal also found that the respondent was entitled to regard her conduct as serious enough to amount to gross misconduct.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct and was fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal did not treat the alternative SOSR reasons in the dismissal letter as the principal reason for dismissal. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found that the claimant had in fact committed gross misconduct, so the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss her without notice. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The amendment to add this claim was allowed shortly before the hearing; the tribunal then dismissed it on the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- band of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- W Devis & Son v Atkins
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- contributory fault
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.