Case 2206631/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Gilroy QC v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2206631/2018
- Decision date
- 12 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr P Gilroy QC
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered a claim by Mr A Conte against Chelsea Football Club Limited. The Respondent had stated in its response that no part of the claim was contested, and the judgment was therefore entered pursuant to rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. It did not set out any contested factual findings or reasons beyond the rule 21 basis for judgment, and written reasons were not provided because reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay Mr Conte a basic award of £1,524.00 and a compensatory award of £83,682.00, making a total award of £85,206.00.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment entered pursuant to rule 21 because the Respondent stated in its response that no part of the claim was contested. The Tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,524.00 and a compensatory award of £83,682.00. | Upheld | — | £85,206 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £85,206
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,524
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £83,682
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure
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.