Case 1404056/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Julie Mellish v Jim Rolf Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404056/2023
- Decision date
- 26 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Julie Mellish
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Midgley, sitting at Bristol by video on 13 March 2024, found that the claimant's claim of constructive dismissal was well founded and that the dismissal was unfair. The claim succeeded.
The tribunal considered it just and equitable to reduce both the basic award (under s.122(2) ERA 1996) and the compensatory award (under s.123(6) ERA 1996) by 25% on account of the claimant's conduct. The respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £2,872.50 and a compensatory award of £1,867.50, producing a total award of £4,740.00.
Recoupment provisions applied: the prescribed element was £1,400.62 covering the period 23 May to 1 September 2023, leaving a balance of £3,339.38 payable to the claimant pending application of the recoupment provisions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was constructively dismissed and that the dismissal was unfair. A 25% reduction was applied to both the basic award (s.122(2) ERA 1996) and the compensatory award (s.123(6) ERA 1996) on account of the claimant's conduct. | Upheld | — | £4,740 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,740
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,873
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,868
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
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.