Case 1807558/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Lowe v Bonmarche Limited (In Administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807558/2019
- Decision date
- 1 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Lowe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The Tribunal found that Miss A Lowe was unfairly dismissed and ordered Bonmarche Limited (in administration) to pay a compensatory award of £22,979.57.
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 a basic award, interest, or a single total monetary award combining the compensatory award with the protective award remuneration.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and orders a compensatory award of £22,979.57. | Upheld | — | £22,980 |
| Other | Protective award under sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; the judgment orders remuneration for 90 days beginning on 29 October 2019 but does not state a fixed monetary amount. | 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.