Case 1806627/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Imbourne v Bonmarche Limited (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806627/2019
- Decision date
- 15 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Imbourne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Rule 21 judgment records that Mr C Imbourne was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The respondent, Bonmarche Limited (in administration), was ordered to pay damages to the claimant in the sum of £9,535.92.
The Tribunal also declared that the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It made a protective award requiring the respondent to pay remuneration to the claimant, who was dismissed as redundant on 29 October 2019, for a period of 90 days beginning on 29 October 2019.
The judgment does not record separate findings on unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, working time, or any discrimination claim. It does not state a quantified value for the 90-day protective award or an aggregate total award combining that award with the notice damages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages of £9,535.92. | Upheld | — | £9,536 |
| Trade union | The judgment declares non-compliance with sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and makes a protective award for 90 days, but does not quantify the monetary value of that award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.