Case 1307661/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs D Clark v Bravissimo Ltd FINAL HEARING — 2020

Case reference: 1307661/2019
Decision date: 29 September 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Camp Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs D Clark

Respondent

Bravissimo Ltd FINAL HEARING

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Mrs D Clark was unfairly dismissed by Bravissimo Ltd. The hearing took place at Midlands (West) via CVP on 28 and 29 September 2020 before Employment Judge Camp. Reasons were given orally, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.

The claimant sought compensation only. The tribunal awarded £4,252.80 in total. That figure was made up of a basic award of £6,379.20 reduced by one-third under section 122(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and a compensatory award reduced to nil under the Polkey principle, with reference to Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd and paragraph 54 of Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded £4,252.80. The basic award of £6,379.20 was reduced by one-third under section 122(2) ERA 1996, and the compensatory award was reduced to nil under the Polkey principle.	Upheld	—	£4,253

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £4,253; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £4,253; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £0; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

4 references

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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.