Miss J Hammond v St Jude’s Care Limited: 2420855/2017
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2018 |
| Citation | 2420855/2017 |
| Published date | 24 November 2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2420855/2017
10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Joanne Hammond
Respondent:
St. Jude’s Care
Heard at: Southampton Employment
Tribunal
On: Wednesday, 14
th
March
2018
Before:
Employment Judge
Mr. M. Salter
Representation:
Claimant:
Mrs. R. Hodgson of counsel
Respondent: Miss C. Lord of counsel
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s dismissal was unfair and the Claimant was subject to a breach of
contract.
The Respondent shall pay the Claimant: £10,384.01
REASONS
References in square brackets below are unless the context suggests otherwise to the page
of the bundle. Those followed by a with a § refer to a paragraph on that page and
references that follow a case reference, or a witness’ initials, refer to the paragraph
number of that authority or witness statement.
References in round brackets are to the paragraph of these reasons or to provide
definitions.
INTRODUCTION
1. These are my reasons for the reserved judgment above. As tribu nal judgments and
reasons are no w published online these reasons will be published on the relevant
website.
Case Number: 2420855/2017
10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62
2
BACKGROUND
The Claimant’s case as formulated in her ET1
2. The Claimant’s complaint, as formulated in her Form ET1 [1 Pleadings], presented
to the tribunal on 6th October 2017, is in short, she was unfairly dismissed and that
her suspension leading up to that dismissal was wrongful and a breach of contract.
The Respondent’s Response
3. In its Form ET3 [9 Pleadings] received by the tribunal on the 9th November 2017 the
Respondent accepted the Claimant was an employee and that she was dismissed,
but denied that that dismissal was unfair, contending it was for a potentially fair
reason, namely a reason related to the Claimant’s conduct and that that dismissal
occurred after a reasonable investigation and was within the band of reasonable
responses open to it.
THE FINAL HEARING
General
4. The matter came before me for Final Hearing on the 14th March 2018. The hearing
had a one-day time estimate. The Claimant was represented by Mrs R. Hodgson of
counsel, the Respondent by Miss. C. Lord of counsel.
List of Issues
5. There was no list of issues provided by the parties, however the issues were
discussed and being a misconduct dismissal claim the issues were well kno wn to
both counsel, the Claimant confirmed that her claim for breach o f contract
concerned the Claimant’s suspension a nd was based on the implied duty of trust
and confidence.
Particular Points that were Discussed
Timetabling
6. Time being limited it was agreed that I would hear all evidence on liability and
remedy.
DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE
Witness Evidence
7. I heard evidence from the following witnesses on behalf of the Respondent: Helen
Routledge, who is the Respondent’s PA/Office Manager and who conducted part of
the investigation into the matter that led to the Claimant’s dismissal, Sally Andrews
a Director of the Respondent, who conducted the disciplinary meeting and Ben
To continue reading
Request your trial