Case 1801065/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Butterfield v BM Retail Limited (In Administration) Heard: BY CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1801065/2021
- Decision date
- 4 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Butterfield
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote Rule 21 hearing before Employment Judge JM Wade on 4 August 2021. The respondent did not appear and no response had been presented by the return date. The administrator consented to the claim proceeding, and the tribunal heard sworn evidence from the claimant before determining the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. The judgment does not set out further reasons in the extracted text, but it records that the claimant had secured new employment while still having ongoing losses.
On remedy, the tribunal made no basic award because the claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment from the Insolvency Service. It awarded a compensatory award of £40,021, described as capped at 52 weeks’ salary and employer pension contribution. The judgment also states that the recoupment regulations did not apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment. No response was presented by the return date, and the administrator gave consent for the claim to proceed. The tribunal heard sworn evidence from the claimant and determined the unfair dismissal claim on that basis. | Upheld | — | £40,021 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £40,021
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £40,021
- 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.