Case 6003580/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Charlotte Amponsah v AMS Care Limited (t/a Gifford House) — 2026

Case reference: 6003580/2025
Decision date: 18 February 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Crosfill Members
Venue: East London Hearing Centre
Panel members: Mrs M Legg, Mr L O'Callaghan

Indexed: 11 July 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs Charlotte Amponsah

Respondent

AMS Care Limited (t/a Gifford House)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting at East London Hearing Centre before Employment Judge Crosfill with members Mrs M Legg and Mr L O'Callaghan, heard the case on 17, 18 and 19 December 2025. It found that Mrs Charlotte Amponsah's unfair dismissal claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded.

The tribunal also upheld the claim that AMS Care Limited dismissed the claimant in breach of contract by giving her no notice of dismissal, brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's direct discrimination claims under sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010, finding that they were not well founded. It upheld the claimant's indirect discrimination claim under sections 19 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010, finding that it was well founded.

The judgment records outcomes only. It states that all remaining issues of remedy will be dealt with at a further hearing if not agreed between the parties, and it gives no monetary award or remedy breakdown.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim brought under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The judgment records that the claimant succeeded in her claim that she was dismissed in breach of contract, having been given no notice of dismissal, under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.	Upheld	—	—
Race discrimination	The judgment records that the direct discrimination claims under sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and were dismissed. The extracted judgment text does not itself state the protected characteristic; race is identified from the case listing context.	Dismissed	Race	—
Race discrimination	The judgment records that the indirect discrimination claim under sections 19 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded. The extracted judgment text does not itself state the protected characteristic; race is identified from the case listing context.	Upheld	Race	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.