Case 2200810/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 2200810/2019
- Decision date
- 31 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K Gbolahan-Johnson's claim against London Borough of Camden succeeded on unfair dismissal. Employment Judge Joffe held that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant, contrary to sections 94 and 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, after hearings on 15, 16 and 17 October 2019.
The tribunal recorded that there was a 50% chance the claimant would have retained her employment for a period of six months from 31 December 2018 had she not been unfairly dismissed. The judgment does not set out a separate monetary award, and it records that terms had been agreed between the parties.
Because the parties had agreed terms, the tribunal made no further order as to remedy. The written judgment therefore records liability and the tribunal's retention finding, but no additional compensation figure or detailed remedy breakdown.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair contrary to sections 94 and 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also recorded a 50% chance that the claimant would have retained her employment for six months from 31 December 2018 had she not been unfairly dismissed, but no separate remedy order was made because terms had been agreed between the parties. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 94 and 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.