Case 2201284/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Maurel v Beesmart International Ltd Heard via CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201284/2020
- Decision date
- 22 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Maurel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a judgment by consent remedy dated 22 March 2021 in Mr S Maurel v Beesmart International Ltd, following a hearing held via CVP on 22 to 25 February 2021. Employment Judge Davidson recorded the remedy terms rather than a detailed liability determination in the extracted text.
In respect of the constructive unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal awarded Mr Maurel a basic award of £1,575 and a compensatory award of £24,425. The judgment does not break those sums down further or give separate reasons for the amount of each award in the text provided.
The judgment also states that there is to be no award in respect of the wrongful dismissal claim. It makes no order as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment is a remedy judgment by consent. It records a basic award of £1,575 and a compensatory award of £24,425 in respect of the constructive unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | £26,000 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that there is to be no award in respect of the wrongful dismissal claim, but gives no further reasoning or separate disposal. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £26,000
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,575
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £24,425
- 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.