Case 2304102/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Gemma Tester v Clockwork Chroming and Motorcyle Parts Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304102/2019
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Gemma Tester
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that no response to the claim had been received and entered judgment for Ms Gemma Tester against Clockwork Chroming and Motorcyle Parts Limited on 6 March 2020. The extracted judgment does not set out the substantive findings on the individual heads of claim, but the case listing identifies claims for breach of contract, whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and working time.
No remedy figure was set in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the case proceed to a remedy hearing on 14 May 2020, with separate notice to follow.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment only states that no response to the claim had been received and judgment was entered for the claimant; this head of claim is taken from the case listing context. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The extracted judgment only states that no response to the claim had been received and judgment was entered for the claimant; this head of claim is taken from the case listing context. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment only states that no response to the claim had been received and judgment was entered for the claimant; this head of claim is taken from the case listing context. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment only states that no response to the claim had been received and judgment was entered for the claimant; this head of claim is taken from the case listing context. | 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.