Case 3335078/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Carey, TU representative v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335078/2018
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr E Carey, TU representative
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard evidence and read documents at Reading on 25 and 26 September 2019, with Employment Judge Vowles sitting alone. The Claimant, Ms C Payawal, was represented by Mr E Carey and the Respondent, Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, by Ms C Ibbotson, counsel. The Tribunal recorded that the Claimant was dismissed by reason of misconduct on 12 July 2018, which it treated as the effective date of termination.
The unfair dismissal complaint under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed because the Tribunal found that the dismissal was not unfair. The wrongful dismissal complaint under article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994 also failed because the Tribunal found that the Claimant was not wrongfully dismissed. No monetary award was made. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided on request.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed by reason of misconduct on 12 July 2018, and that the dismissal was not unfair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal found the Claimant was not wrongfully dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 3 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994
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.