Mr C Murray, counsel v Respondent — 2020

Case reference: 1300208/2020
Decision date: 19 November 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Broughton Appearances
Venue: Birmingham

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr C Murray, counsel

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting at Birmingham by CVP before Employment Judge Broughton, held that Mrs E Lavis’s claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against Sitec Building & Maintenance Ltd succeeded. The judgment does not set out the underlying factual findings in detail on this page.

Remedy was not determined at the judgment stage. By consent, the parties were given 14 days to resolve remedy, or alternatively to send in details of the agreed elements together with written submissions on any outstanding points, which would then be determined on the papers.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. Remedy was not determined in the judgment; the parties were given 14 days to resolve remedy or file agreed elements and submissions on any outstanding points.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. Remedy was not determined in the judgment; the parties were given 14 days to resolve remedy or file agreed elements and submissions on any outstanding points.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.