Case 2200707/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Coney-Critchley, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200707/2019
- Decision date
- 21 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr B Coney-Critchley, solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London Central and chaired by Employment Judge Elliott, found that Mr F Blot had been unfairly dismissed by Elite Model Management London. The judgment records that the hearing took place on 19, 20 and 21 August 2019 and that the claimant was represented by Mr B Coney-Critchley, solicitor, while the respondent was represented by Mr P Strelitz, counsel.
The tribunal also found that there should be a reduction in any compensation of 100% because of contributory fault. The judgment does not record any monetary figure after that reduction, so no separate compensation amount is extracted from the text.
The claim for wrongful dismissal was dismissed. No discrimination, whistleblowing, or other claims are recorded in the judgment extract provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered a 100% reduction in any compensation for contributory fault. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.