Case 1807232/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Davis v BM Retail Limited (In Administration) Heard: BY CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1807232/2020
- Decision date
- 3 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Davis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard remotely by CVP on 3 August 2021 before Employment Judge JM Wade. No response had been presented by the return date, and the administrator consented to the claim proceeding on 22 February 2021. The tribunal heard sworn evidence from Miss C Davis and decided the case under Rule 21.
The tribunal found that Miss Davis's complaints of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract were well founded and succeeded. Any other complaints in the claim form were dismissed as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction or misconceived. The judgment also records that there was no protective award claim in the ET1; the judge said that, had one been presented, the facts described suggested it would have had little or no prospects of success.
On remedy, the tribunal noted that the claimant had obtained new employment but still had ongoing losses. No basic award was made because she had received a statutory redundancy payment from the Insolvency Service. The tribunal awarded a compensatory award of £14,569.
The judgment states that no separate award was made for breach of contract or arrears because those sums were included in the compensatory award, which also gave credit for sums paid by the Insolvency Service. The recoupment regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held this complaint was well founded and succeeded under Rule 21. No separate award was made because the compensatory award covered the losses found. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held this complaint was well founded and succeeded. The judgment does not split out any separate sum for this head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held this complaint was well founded and succeeded, but stated that no separate award was made for breach of contract/arrears because those sums were included in the compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Any other complaints indicated in the claim form were dismissed as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction or misconceived. The judgment does not identify those complaints individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,569
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £14,569
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Judgment
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.