Case 2209964/2023 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2209964/2023
- Decision date
- 5 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Representations
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claim for unpaid bonus was successful and ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant GBP 25,000. The judgment does not provide a further written breakdown of the basis for that award.
The Tribunal recorded that the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 were not well-founded and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally, and the written judgment states that the parties may apply for written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a successful claim for unpaid bonus and orders the Respondent to pay GBP 25,000. | Upheld | — | £25,000 |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismisses the claim of automatic unfair dismissal pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the claim of unfair dismissal pursuant to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 94 and 98 of the 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.