Case 1800288/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jean Bower v GD Media Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800288/2022
- Decision date
- 13 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jean Bower
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Maidment entered judgment under Rule 21 for Ms Jean Bower against GD Media Limited. The tribunal found that she had been unfairly dismissed and ordered the respondent to pay a basic award of £12,146.30 and a compensatory award of £9,175.32.
The judgment also states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, but the £3,932.28 notice sum was not separately recovered because it was already included within the compensatory award. The tribunal noted that a separate recovery would have resulted in double recovery.
The listed hearing on 24 May 2022 was cancelled. No discrimination, whistleblowing, or other additional claims are recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment; the tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded a basic award and compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £21,322 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in relation to notice, but no separate damages were recovered because that sum was already included in the compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,322
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £12,146
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,175
- 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.