Case 2206851/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. MARK HEWLETT v Ebury Partners UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206851/2020
- Decision date
- 17 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P. Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. MARK HEWLETT
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hewlett was contractually entitled to receive 2,000 shares from Ebury Partners UK Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent transferred 1,275 shares to him only in partial satisfaction of that obligation. It held that denying the claimant the shares promised in December 2017 was a fundamental breach of the express contractual term and a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
On that basis, the tribunal found that Mr Hewlett was unfairly dismissed by the respondent on a constructive dismissal basis. The judgment records that compensation for unfair dismissal was to be determined at a remedy hearing, if not agreed by the parties, to be listed by the tribunal. The claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as unfair dismissal on a constructive dismissal basis. Compensation was left to a remedy hearing if not agreed by the parties. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.