Carer dismissed by email after back injury: no investigation, no hearing
A carer with nearly five years' service was dismissed by email after reporting a back injury at work. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but limited compensation because a fair dismissal would have occurred anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #micro-employer
- #care-worker
- #conduct-dismissal
- #sosr
- #acas-code-uplift
- #no-contributory-fault
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a carer for the respondent, a disabled individual with MS.
- The claimant injured her back while working on 15 August 2022 and was signed off sick.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant by email on 22 August 2022 without any prior investigation or hearing.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but held that a fair dismissal would have occurred for some other substantial reason (loss of trust).
- The claimant's claim for unpaid holiday pay was dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a carer for the respondent.
-
Injury at work
Claimant injured her back while hoisting the respondent.
-
Reported injury
Claimant told respondent she was injured at work; respondent denies this.
-
Sick leave started
Claimant went off sick with back injury.
-
Email from Sharan Gill
Respondent's sister sent email about annual leave and sickness absence.
-
Claimant's response
Claimant emailed disputing the email and stating injury occurred at work.
-
Dismissal letter
Respondent sent dismissal letter with six allegations, no right of appeal.
-
Email from Sharan Gill
Email asking claimant to accept termination, referencing police involvement.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant emailed appeal; no appeal meeting or decision followed.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended after four weeks' notice.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the carer was unfairly dismissed when her employer, a disabled individual with MS, dismissed her by email without any prior investigation or hearing, and whether she was entitled to unpaid holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal but found that a fair dismissal would have occurred in any event for 'some other substantial reason' (loss of trust). The carer was awarded a basic award of £1,302 and a compensatory award of £234.43, totalling £1,536.43.
- Basic award: £1,302
- Compensatory award: £234.43
- Total: £1,536.43
The claim for unpaid holiday pay was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Dismissing an employee without any investigation or hearing is almost always procedurally unfair, even for micro-employers.
- Employers should follow a basic disciplinary process, including giving the employee a chance to respond to allegations, before making a dismissal decision.
- Even if a dismissal is unfair, compensation can be reduced if the tribunal finds that a fair dismissal would have happened anyway (a Polkey reduction).
- Employees with less than two years' service have limited unfair dismissal rights, but those with longer service are protected.
- Micro-employers are not exempt from fair procedures, but tribunals may take their size and resources into account when assessing reasonableness.
This case shows how a breakdown in trust can lead to a swift dismissal, but also how important it is for employers to follow a fair process. The carer had worked for her employer, who has multiple sclerosis, for nearly five years. After injuring her back while hoisting the employer, she was signed off sick. Just a week later, she received a dismissal email listing six allegations, with no prior investigation or hearing.
The tribunal acknowledged the employer's difficult circumstances as a disabled individual reliant on care, but found that the complete lack of process made the dismissal unfair. However, the tribunal also concluded that the relationship had broken down irretrievably due to the carer's conduct, meaning a fair dismissal would have occurred anyway. This limited the compensation to just over £1,500.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have avoided the unfairness finding by holding a simple meeting to discuss the allegations and give the carer a chance to respond. Even a brief, informal discussion would have satisfied basic procedural fairness. The employer's failure to do so meant the dismissal was automatically unfair, even though the outcome would likely have been the same.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that micro-employers are not exempt from fair procedures. While the tribunal will consider the employer's size and resources, a complete failure to investigate or hear the employee's side will almost always result in an unfair dismissal finding. However, it also shows that compensation can be significantly reduced if the employer can show that a fair dismissal would have occurred anyway.
Similar cases
Dismissed for running a side business: employer's failure to follow any procedure leads to £23,674 award
A technical consultant with 11 years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer stopped paying him because his side business installing the company's products was too successful. The tribunal awarded £23,673.75, with a 20% uplift for ignoring the ACAS code.
Security guard with 28 months' service found to be employee, unfairly dismissed
A security guard who was removed from his assignment and not given any disciplinary process has been found to be an employee and unfairly dismissed. The tribunal also ordered the employer to pay outstanding holiday pay for the full 28 months of service.
Care worker unfairly dismissed by employer-mother after incident with son
A care worker with four years' service was unfairly dismissed after an incident with his client. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair and awarded £2,975 after deductions.
Piano teacher dismissed for refusing to attend short-notice meeting: unfair dismissal
A piano and singing teacher with 24 years' service was unfairly dismissed after she refused to attend a mandatory staff meeting at short notice because of a pre-arranged family gathering to discuss her mother's cancer care. The Leeds tribunal awarded £16,802.31.