Case 2602983/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Bullivant v Venian Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602983/2019
- Decision date
- 4 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Bullivant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Britton recorded that Mr C Bullivant's claim of unfair dismissal succeeded against Venian Ltd. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay compensation in the total sum of £6,156.00 as set out in the claimant's schedule of loss, and noted that this figure included a basic award of £1,050.00.
The tribunal also dealt with a separate claim for a redundancy payment. It dismissed that claim as a duplication, explaining that a redundancy payment is calculated in the same way as a basic award and that, on the pleadings, the claim was clearly one for unfair dismissal rather than a distinct redundancy payment claim. The hearing listed for 17 February 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and awarded compensation as per the claimant's schedule of loss in the total sum of £6,156.00, which included a basic award of £1,050.00. | Upheld | — | £6,156 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim as a duplication, stating that it was calculated in the same way as a basic award and that the pleading was clearly a claim for unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,156
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,050
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,106
- 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.