Case 1304944/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Bladen v CMS Kidderminster Ltd (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304944/2023
- Decision date
- 1 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham in private
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Bladen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard in private by CVP at Birmingham on 30 November 2023, Employment Judge Hindmarch recorded that the claimant, Mr L Bladen, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The judgment states that the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded and that the respondent was to pay £1,199.92.
The tribunal also found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. It held that Mr Bladen had been unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £6,073.38 together with a compensatory award of £10,897.76. The judgment does not set out any further reasoning beyond those findings and award figures.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to notice pay was found well-founded. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim was found well-founded; the tribunal awarded a basic award of £6,073.38 and a compensatory award of £10,897.76. | Upheld | — | £16,871 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,171
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,073
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,898
- compensatory remedy recorded
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.