Case 2412919/2023 · Employment Tribunal
K Joce v In Depth Services (Cleaning) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412919/2023
- Decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
K Joce
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Batten, sitting alone at Manchester by video on 29-30 August 2024, heard a claim by K Joce against In Depth Services (Cleaning) Limited. The tribunal found that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant compensation of £2,230.76. That sum comprised a basic award of £1,730.76 and £500 for loss of statutory rights. The judgment was signed on 30 August 2024 and sent to the parties on 4 September 2024.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided in this document. The accompanying Article 12 notice records the relevant decision day as 4 September 2024, the calculation day as 5 September 2024, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal held the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. Compensation comprised a basic award of £1,730.76 plus £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £2,231 |
| Unfair dismissal | The single complaint is framed as 'constructive unfair dismissal'; recorded here as the parallel unfair dismissal claim. Award is captured on the constructive_dismissal entry to avoid double-counting. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,231
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,731
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.