Case 2304396/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304396/2019
- Decision date
- 14 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyde Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge C Hyde, sitting alone, determined the claimant's complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal held that both complaints were not well founded and dismissed them.
The written record does not set out substantive reasons for those dismissals because reasons had been given orally at the hearing and would not be provided in writing unless requested. The judgment also records that the respondent's name was amended from "Kimberly-Clark" to Kimberly-Clark European Services Limited.
Separately from the merits disposal, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £5,000 in costs under Rule 76(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal and says it was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unlawful deduction of wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 76(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.