Case 1800986/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v John Bull Confectioners Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800986/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent did not file a response. The employment judge recorded that there was sufficient information on the file to give judgment. The claimant, Miss E Bellwood, brought complaints of wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal on the basis of protected disclosure against John Bull Confectioners Ltd.
The tribunal held that both complaints were well founded and succeeded. The judgment does not give separate factual findings on liability beyond that conclusion, but it expressly identifies the unfair dismissal complaint as one based on protected disclosure, which is reflected here as a whistleblowing claim.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that there was no basic award because the claimant had less than two years' service. The respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £8,153.60, calculated as 26 x £313.60, as the compensatory award. The judgment also states that damages for wrongful dismissal are included in that award, and it does not allocate a separate sum to each claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that damages for wrongful dismissal are included in the gross award of £8,153.60, but it does not split the award between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The unfair dismissal complaint is described as one of protected disclosure. The judgment does not split the award between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,154
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,154
- 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.