Case 1807228/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Bartlett v BM Retail Limited (In Administration) Heard: BY CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1807228/2020
- Decision date
- 2 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Bartlett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote Rule 21 hearing before Employment Judge JM Wade on 2 August 2021. The respondent presented no response by the return date, although the administrator had consented to the claim proceeding on 22 February 2021. The tribunal heard sworn evidence from the claimant and determined the case on that basis.
The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract succeeded. The tribunal said any other complaints indicated in the claim form were dismissed as being outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or misconceived. The judgment also records that there was no claim for a protective award in the claim form, and that if one had been presented the facts described would have given it little or no prospect of success.
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 £8,000. The judgment states that the recoupment regulations did not apply to that award, and that no other awards were made because other sums had already been paid by the Insolvency Service or were included in the compensatory award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Any other complaints indicated in the claim form were dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction or misconceived. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,000
- 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.