Case 6019109/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Watkins v Whitbread Group plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019109/2025
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Representation
- Venue
- Newport
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Watkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal after being summarily dismissed from her role as Hotel Manager. The respondent relied on misconduct relating to four occasions when weekly fire alarm checks had not been physically completed but had been signed off as complete.
The Tribunal found that misconduct was the reason for dismissal and a potentially fair reason. It found the elements of the Burchell test were satisfied, and that while some aspects of the investigation process were not ideal, they did not affect the outcome.
The Tribunal considered the claimant's long and unblemished service, mitigation, acceptance of responsibility, and the absence of evidence that the conduct would be repeated. It concluded that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses given the seriousness of the fire safety failures and falsified records, so the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The provided PDF text is truncated, but the visible conclusions state that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.207(2) TULRCA 1992
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood
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.