Case 2206263/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. M. Mark v Acton Vale Community Association — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206263/2023
- Decision date
- 20 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Galbraith-Marten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. M. Mark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central, heard by CVP on 19 and 20 October 2023, Employment Judge J Galbraith-Marten sitting alone held that Ms M Mark's claim for constructive unfair dismissal was well founded. The tribunal also held that her complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well founded.
The written record does not set out the factual findings behind those conclusions because reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not to be provided unless requested. The judgment therefore records the outcomes only, without a detailed narrative of the events leading to dismissal or the notice pay issue.
The tribunal did not quantify remedy in this judgment. It directed a separate remedy hearing for 26 January 2024 with a 3-hour estimate, and Appendix A identified the remedy issues for the unfair constructive dismissal claim, including the basic award, compensatory award, mitigation, chance of fair dismissal, the ACAS Code, contributory conduct, and whether the statutory cap applied.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's claim for constructive unfair dismissal was well founded. Remedy was left to a later hearing on 26 January 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well founded. No sum was quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.