Case 4103343/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Cheryl Coutts v Silverburn Care Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103343/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Cheryl Coutts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Cheryl Coutts worked as a support worker at Silverburn Care Ltd. The tribunal found that on 12 April 2022 CCTV showed her pushing a resident back from the doorway of the home and then shouting at her. It found that no physical force was permitted in relation to that resident, that the claimant knew this from her training and experience, and that her actions amounted to an assault. Mr Rishi Sujeewon genuinely believed she was guilty of gross misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief, so the respondent proved a potentially fair reason for dismissal under s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996.
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the process was not fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal found there was no proper disciplinary investigation involving the claimant, no written allegations, no disciplinary meeting, no disclosure of the CCTV or witness statements, and no opportunity to be accompanied. It also found that Mrs Marie Lakin's appeal handling did not properly investigate four of the five appeal grounds and that the respondent's appeal process was not carried out objectively. Applying the Burchell approach, the Acas Code, and the band of reasonable responses, the tribunal held the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
The wrongful dismissal claim failed. Although the claimant's contractual notice entitlement was three weeks, the tribunal held that statute gave her four weeks' notice, but that her conduct on 12 April 2022 was repudiatory and entitled the respondent to summarily dismiss her without notice. The claimant had also withdrawn claims for statutory redundancy payment, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments, which were dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52. Remedy was left for a later hearing: reinstatement or re-engagement was not decided, and the tribunal said it would then consider whether to impose a financial penalty under s.12A Employment Tribunals Act 1996. No final monetary award was made in this judgment, although the tribunal indicated that any basic award or compensatory award would be reduced to nil in principle because of the claimant's conduct, contributory conduct, and Polkey, with the compensatory reduction running from 3 May 2022.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant's conduct was repudiatory, so summary dismissal without notice was contractually justified. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this head as 'arrears of pay'; it was dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to this head as 'other payments'; it was dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey principle
- repudiatory conduct (Macari/McCormack)
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.86(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.10 Employment Act 2002
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.