Case 3300399/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300399/2019
- Decision date
- 26 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heal Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford on 26 September 2019 before Employment Judge Heal. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Miss K. Newton, counsel. The written judgment records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were issued unless separately requested.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of breach of contract relating to an unpaid bonus because the claimant withdrew it. It then held that the remaining breach of contract complaint was not well founded and dismissed it.
The tribunal also held that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and dismissed it. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract for unpaid bonus; the judgment records that it was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The remaining complaint of breach of contract was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.