Case 2303669/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms De-Wilde Clark v National Crime Agency — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303669/2023
- Decision date
- 29 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms De-Wilde Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at London South before Employment Judge Hart on 27 November 2024, found that Ms De-Wilde Clark's claim of constructive dismissal against the National Crime Agency was well founded.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a basic award of £16,273.50 (calculated as 19 weeks x 1.5 x £571) and a compensatory award of £46,911.88 for loss of earnings between 2 March 2023 and 27 July 2024, both within 21 days. The compensatory award was built from loss of earnings of £42,204.54 over 514 days, loss of pension contributions of £14,433.12, less £7,792.12 earned in new employment over 8 months, plus £750 for loss of statutory rights, with the statutory cap of £46,991.88 (52 weeks' statutory pay) applied.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No legal tests or authorities are named in the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Judgment records the claim for constructive dismissal as well founded. Compensatory award attributed to this claim; basic award of £16,273.50 also ordered. | Upheld | — | £46,912 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £63,185
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £16,274
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £46,912
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.