Case 1305313/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Kevin Lloyd v Clearview Stoves Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305313/2020
- Decision date
- 15 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Kevin Lloyd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Kelly sat alone at Birmingham virtually on 30 and 31 May 2022. The tribunal found that Kevin Lloyd's constructive unfair dismissal claim against Clearview Stoves Ltd was well founded and succeeded. The written record states that reasons were given orally on delivery of judgment and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a basic award of £13,650, damages for wrongful dismissal of £10,600.20 based on 26 weeks' net pay of £407.20, a bonus payment of £10,430, and £629.41 for 26 weeks' loss of pension benefit at £24.41 per week. It also awarded £2,100 for failure to provide a written statement of terms and reduced the award by £2,607.50 to reflect the claimant's failure to mitigate his losses, making a total award of £34,802.11.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment finds the constructive unfair dismissal claim well founded and records awards for basic award, damages for wrongful dismissal, bonus, pension loss, and a written-statement award, subject to a £2,607.50 reduction for failure to mitigate losses. | Upheld | — | £34,802 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £34,802
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £13,650
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £19,052
- 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.