Case 3300703/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr D Charity, Employment Consultant CONSENT — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300703/2019
- Decision date
- 9 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Watford on 10 October 2019 before Employment Judge Bedeau, the parties reached a consent judgment. The respondent, Busy Bee Cleaning Services Ltd, was ordered to pay the claimant £3,000 by 4 pm on 8 November 2019, less income tax and national insurance deductions.
The judgment states that £1,000 of that sum was notice pay and £1,760 was compensation for loss of employment. It also records that the payment was in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the claimant's employment under this case number. The extracted text does not identify any contested liability findings, and it does not explain the balance between the itemised amounts and the stated total.
The order further provided that the claims would be withdrawn and dismissed on 9 November 2019 unless the claimant informed the tribunal otherwise before that date.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Consent judgment recorded a £3,000 payment in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the claimant's employment; the judgment does not allocate a separate amount to this pleaded claim. | Settled | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Consent judgment recorded a £3,000 payment in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the claimant's employment; the judgment does not allocate a separate amount to this pleaded claim. | Settled | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,000
- across all upheld claims
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.