Case 1306408/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Hanbury, Lay Representative For the v Mrs K Cleary, Human Resources Consultant and Director — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306408/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Hanbury, Lay Representative For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing held by CVP in the Midlands West on 6 to 8 January 2025, Employment Judge Hughes recorded that Miss G Deegan was constructively unfairly dismissed by SBK Lettings Ltd. The decision was approved on 9 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 16 January 2025.
The written record does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons, but it records the outcome that the constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £11,584.23 as compensation, and the Recoupment Regulations did not apply. No further remedy breakdown is provided in the written judgment record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The written record states that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed and that the respondent was ordered to pay £11,584.23 compensation. No separate breakdown between basic award, compensatory award, or interest is given in the written record. | Upheld | — | £11,584 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,584
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.