Case 4103417/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Gallagher v Represented by: Mr R Clarke, Solicitor North Ayrshire Women’s Aid — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103417/2023
- Decision date
- 20 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Gallagher
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Louise Gallagher brought a single claim of unfair dismissal. The respondent admitted dismissal but relied on some other substantial reason, said to be an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence, while the tribunal recorded that the dismissal letter also mixed in conduct findings. The tribunal held that the respondent had not proved SOSR as the principal reason because Ms Stirton's oral evidence was that conduct, not SOSR, was the principal reason. It therefore found the dismissal unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal went on to consider the alternative case, assuming SOSR had been the principal reason. It accepted that, as a small charity without in-house HR, the respondent could use external consultants and that authority for Mr Muir and Ms Stirton was sufficiently inferred from the facts and later ratified. Even so, the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal relied on the prejudgment in Ms Stirton's 18 January 2023 letter, the fact that the dismissal basis shifted to an unpleaded breakdown in trust and confidence, and the lack of a proper investigation into that issue. It also found that the claimant had not deliberately misled the investigation about the missed fire risk assessment or the ISO 9001 work, and it regarded the equal opportunities form issue as minor.
On remedy, the claimant did not seek reinstatement or re-engagement. The basic award was agreed at £13,056.87 and reduced by 30% for contributory conduct, leaving £9,139.81. The compensatory award was based on loss to 20 July 2023 of £884.56, future loss for 26 weeks at £80.37 per week, and £500 for loss of statutory rights, totalling £3,474.18 before reduction. The tribunal then applied a 60% deduction for combined Polkey and contribution, leaving £1,389.67. The opening order states a total award of £10,529.81, although the detailed totals section in paragraph 129 calculates £10,529.48.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that North Ayrshire Women's Aid did not prove SOSR as the principal reason for dismissal because Ms Stirton's oral evidence was that conduct was the principal reason. In the alternative, dismissal would have been unfair under s.98(4) because of prejudgment, a changed basis for dismissal, and an inadequate investigation. The judgment's opening order states a total of £10,529.81, while the detailed totals in paragraph 129 calculate £10,529.48. | Upheld | — | £10,530 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,530
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,140
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,390
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- some other substantial reason (SOSR)
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods band of reasonable responses
- Polkey principle
- ACAS Code of Practice
- s.119 and s.123 ERA 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.