Case 6016850/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Respondent: Mrs. A. Dickson-Lewis Milton Keynes City Council v Mrs. A. Dickson-Lewis Milton Keynes City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016850/2024
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Respondent: Mrs. A. Dickson-Lewis Milton Keynes City Council
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent contended that the reason for dismissal was conduct under section 98(2)(b), arising from findings it classified as gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that the respondent spoke to relevant witnesses, heard from the claimant and her representative, reviewed relevant documents, and took the claimant's responses into account. It found that the respondent reasonably concluded that the allegations were proven, that the conduct amounted to gross misconduct, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The tribunal also found that the procedure was fair: the claimant knew the charges, was warned dismissal was possible, had notice of the evidence, and had opportunities to state her case including at appeal. The claim for unfair dismissal therefore failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The supplied PDF text is truncated, but the reserved judgment and closing summary state that the unfair dismissal claim fails. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey
- ACAS Code
- range of reasonable responses
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.