Case 4111134/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Karen Urquhart v Represented by Mr F Lefevre Solicitor Temple Medical Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111134/2019
- Decision date
- 3 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Karen Urquhart
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Karen Urquhart worked for Temple Medical Ltd from 1 May 2010. After she emailed on 30 June 2019 claiming she had been underpaid under a 8 June 2016 contract referring to her as Clinical Director on £30 per hour, Dr Robson suspended her on 16 July 2019 on allegations that she had fraudulently created a contract for her own financial gain. Professor Eagle dismissed her summarily on 5 August 2019.
The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996. It accepted that the respondent was alleging misconduct, but found the investigation inadequate and one-sided. The respondent relied on IT advice that document dates could be altered, but that material was not put to the claimant at the investigatory or disciplinary stages. The tribunal also found there was no direct evidence that she had altered the contract date, that the respondent had wrongly assumed earlier payslips showed her hourly rate, and that alternative explanations linked to the respondent's poor record keeping and IT problems were not properly explored.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's alternative argument that the dismissal was justified by a breakdown in the relationship. It found no reasonable employer could have concluded that the claimant was perpetrating a fraud on the evidence available. No reduction was made for contributory conduct or Polkey, and the tribunal awarded a basic award of £5,717.70 and a compensatory award of £1,579.26.
The tribunal also upheld wrongful dismissal, but made no separate award because it treated that issue as subsumed within the unfair dismissal award. It upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim for £1,787.36, finding the respondent had not shown that the claimant had worked fewer hours than she had been paid for, and it upheld the holiday pay claim for £266.40 gross on the basis that 1.6 days accrued leave remained due when employment ended.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on 5 August 2019 after suspension on 16 July 2019 for alleged fraud; the tribunal found the investigation inadequate and the IT material was not put to the claimant. No Polkey or contributory fault reduction was made. | Upheld | — | £7,297 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found no material breach of contract by the claimant, but made no separate award because the point was treated as subsumed within the unfair dismissal award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The deduction from final pay was not justified on the evidence of hours worked; the respondent's overpayment counterclaim was rejected and the deduction was reinstated. | Upheld | — | £1,787 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found 1.6 days accrued holiday due at dismissal and awarded £266.40 gross. | Upheld | — | £266 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,351
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,718
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,579
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt
- A v B
- Roldan
- Polkey principle
- s.122 ERA 1996
- 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.