Case 2410167/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Wensley v Bishop Fraser Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410167/2019
- Decision date
- 17 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded. The judgment does not set out the underlying factual findings in the extracted text, but it records that the claimant succeeded on liability and that remedy would be dealt with separately.
The tribunal directed that both the basic award and the compensatory award would be reduced by 25% for contributory conduct. It also directed a 50% reduction of any part of the compensatory award attributable to a period of loss after the end of the maternity leave the claimant would have taken with the respondent.
No final monetary award is recorded in this judgment. The tribunal listed a remedy hearing for 5 May 2020. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded. It ordered that the basic award and compensatory award would each be reduced by 25% for contributory conduct, and that any part of the compensatory award attributable to loss after the end of the maternity leave the claimant would have taken would be reduced by 50%. Remedy was listed for a later hearing on 5 May 2020. | 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.