Case 2303274/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Louise Bronson v Solar London Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303274/2022
- Decision date
- 11 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rea Representation
- Venue
- London South ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Louise Bronson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 11 July 2023, sitting at London South Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Rea, the tribunal dealt with liability only. The Claimant, Ms Louise Bronson, was represented by herself and the Respondent, Solar London Limited, was represented by its Managing Director, Mr Andre Lindow.
The Claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages, said to relate to sick pay and holiday pay, was dismissed upon withdrawal. Her claim under the Working Time Regulations in respect of annual leave was also dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal found that the Claimant's claim for constructive unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal also found that the Respondent had failed to issue the Claimant with a written statement of particulars of employment in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
This was a liability judgment only, and the extracted text does not record any compensatory, basic award, or other monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions from wages in respect of sick pay and holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim under the Working Time Regulations in respect of annual leave was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the Claimant's claim for constructive unfair dismissal well-founded and that it succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The Respondent failed to issue the Claimant with a written statement of particulars of employment in breach of s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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.