Case 3302000/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Bonner v Mr Andrew Clifford Chalk and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3302000/2020
- Decision date
- 14 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss A Bonner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Bury St Edmunds on 16 September 2020, before Employment Judge M Warren, the tribunal dealt with claims under case numbers 3307467/2020 and 3302000/2020. The claimant was represented by Mr Wareing and the respondents by Mr McDevitt.
The tribunal dismissed case 3307467/2020 because it had been withdrawn. In case 3302000/2020, the tribunal stayed the claim for 28 days while the parties awaited a COT3, recording that the parties had agreed terms of settlement. The judgment stated that if no further correspondence was received from the parties or ACAS by 14 October 2020, the claim would be dismissed.
The extracted judgment does not record any monetary award, and it does not set out substantive findings on liability beyond the procedural disposal of the two case numbers. No legal test is named in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 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| Breach of contract | Case number 3307467/2020 was dismissed upon having been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Case number 3302000/2020 was stayed for 28 days pending receipt of a COT3 after the parties said they had agreed terms of settlement. The judgment said the claim would be dismissed if no further correspondence was received by 14 October 2020, but it did not record a final dismissal or consent order in the text provided. | Other | — | — |
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.