Case 1402629/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Passman (Solicitor) For the v Miss Irvine (Solicitor) Page 2 of 2 — 2020
- Case reference
- 1402629/2019
- Decision date
- 13 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr D.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Passman (Solicitor) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Mr D. Harris, gave judgment for the First Claimant, Miss N. Bond, in her claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against Sky In-Home Service Ltd. The tribunal dismissed the Second Claimant, Miss H. Brown's, claim of unfair dismissal, but gave judgment for her in her claim of wrongful dismissal.
No remedy was assessed in this judgment. Instead, the tribunal listed the case for a remedies hearing by Cloud Video Platform on 21 January 2021 and directed the Respondent to file and serve counter-schedules of loss by 4pm on 16 December 2020 in respect of the First Claimant's unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims and the Second Claimant's wrongful dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | First Claimant; liability only, with remedies listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | First Claimant; liability only, with remedies listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Second Claimant; liability only, with remedies listed for a later hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Second Claimant; liability only, with remedies listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.