Case 1403155/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Hudson, USDAW For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403155/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs Hudson, USDAW For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Bristol on 16 and 17 January 2020, before Employment Judge Midgley, the tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. The written record does not set out the underlying factual dispute in detail, but the dispositive finding is that the claim succeeded in full.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the agreed sum of £14,367.81. That sum was broken down in the judgment as a basic award of £8,662.50 and a compensatory award of £5,714.32. The tribunal recorded that no deduction was made to the award for Polkey or contributory conduct.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeds. The respondent was ordered to pay an agreed sum of £14,367.81, made up of a basic award of £8,662.50 and a compensatory award of £5,714.32. The judgment says no deduction was made for Polkey or contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | £14,368 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,368
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,663
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,714
- 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.