Case 1601768/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bladen v Croftwick Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601768/2018
- Decision date
- 10 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bladen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the absence of an ET3 response form from Croftwick Limited, Employment Judge Cadney determined the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, recording that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination. The judgment states that the claim was upheld.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,572.00, calculated on the basis of six years' service and a statutory cap of £508. The compensatory award was then made up of £3,202.58 for loss of employment from 16 September 2018 to 11 November 2018, £5,851.52 for ongoing loss from 12 November 2018 to 15 September 2019, and £450.00 for loss of long term statutory rights.
The total award recorded by the judgment was £14,076.10. The judgment also notes that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Determined under Rule 21 in the absence of an ET3 response form. The extracted judgment records a basic award and compensatory award; no separate award is identified for any other claim type in the text provided. | Upheld | — | £14,076 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,076
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,572
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,504
- 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.