Ms D Hill v Able Healthcare Ltd: 3306239/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 2022 |
| Date | 01 March 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 17 March 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case Number: 3306239/2021
1 of 20
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms D Hill
Respondent: Abl e Healthcare Ltd
Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal (in public; by video)
On: 21 February 2022
Before: Employmen t Judge Quill (sitting alone)
Appearances
For the claimant: Ms S Khaliq, solicitor
For the respondent: Ms B Samuels, solicitor
RESERVED JUDGMENT
(1) The effective date of termination was 26 December 2020.
(2) The start date of the Claimant’s employment was 2 January 2019.
(3) The final hearing is still as notified to parties by Notice of Hearing dated 15 August
2021 (so is for one day, on 11 March 2022, starting at 10am). That hearing will
take place fully remotely by video.
(4) As presented, the claim did not include a complaint of unfair dismissal and I do
not allow an amendment to add that complaint.
REASONS
Introduction
1. As per the notice of hearing dated 1 1 November 2021, the parties were informed
that that there was to be a public preliminary hearing on 21 February 2 022, and
that:
The Claimant’s application to add on the claim of unfair dismissal shall be
determined at a Preliminary Hearing (open) together with a factual determination of
the Claimant’s start date and her effective date of dismissal. The hearing will be
listed or half day on the first available date. The parties shall exchange witness
Case Number: 3306239/2021
2 of 20
statements within 21 days from the date of this letter. A Preliminary Hearing bundle
shall be agreed and prepared by the Respondent within14 days thereafter. Written
submissions to be exchanged no later than 7 days before the Preliminary Hearing.
2. The crux of the dispute is that on the Claimant’s case, the Respondent did not
have the right to terminate with immediate effect, and, therefore, the EDT was not
until 2 January 2021, which would have been the expiry of 1 week’s notice (the
applicable statutory minimum notice period). The Respondent argued that it did
have the right to terminate without notice, and that the EDT was 26 December
2020.
3. As both parties understood: if the Claimant was correct about EDT, then the
Claimant would have had had 2 years’ continuous service by the EDT; if the
Respondent was correct about EDT, then the Claimant had less than 2 years’
continuous service by the EDT.
The Claim as presented
4. There was early conciliation from 9 March 2021 to 26 March 2021. The claim was
presented on 22 April 2021, less than one month after the end of early conciliation.
5. The complaints as itemised were:
5.1 Wrongful dismissal / breach of contract / failure to give notice of dismissal
5.2 Unlawful deduction from wages (relating to alleged non-payment for 15
December 2020 to 31 December 2020)
5.3 Failure to make (full) payment in lieu of unused holiday entitlement upon
termination
6. There appears to be no dispute that, for each of those 3 complaints, the claim was
presented in time (though, for avoidance of doubt, that was not a matter which was
for me to formally decide at the preliminary hearing and so, if there is a dispute,
that will be addressed at the final hearing.)
7. As noted in Box 11, the Claimant was represented by solicitors at the time the
claim was presented. That firm has continued to represent the Claimant, up to and
including this preliminary hearing.
The Response as presented
8. The Respondent admitted an underpayment of payment in lieu of unused holiday
entitlement, but disputed the amount.
9. The Respondent denied that the Claimant was entitled to notice, asserting that
there had been a repudiatory breach of contract by the Claimant which, by a
telephone conversation on 26 December 2020, the Respondent had accepted,
bringing about an immediate and lawful termination of the employment contract.
To continue reading
Request your trial