Case 3303921/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Bonfield v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303921/2020
- Decision date
- 31 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs J Bonfield
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Bonfield brought claims including unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay and other payments. The respondent did not enter an appearance or file a response. The tribunal held that the claim was presented in time after ACAS early conciliation, despite the claimant's first online submission wrongly naming the manager rather than the respondent, and therefore the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaints.
On unfair dismissal, the claimant gave evidence about the suspension and disciplinary process that led to dismissal and said some statements had been manufactured or altered. The tribunal recorded the statutory test under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and concluded that, because the respondent provided no response or evidence, it had not shown the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The tribunal therefore found the dismissal unfair.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,855.20 using a multiplier of 10.5 and a weekly pay figure of £462.40. It awarded a compensatory award of £18,676.32, made up of £18,376.32 for loss of earnings and £300 for loss of statutory industrial rights, and said the recoupment provisions applied. It also found the claimant was entitled to holiday pay for three days in the 2019 holiday year and 15 carried-over days from 2018. The reasons and final award section do not fully reconcile all of the figures, but the monetary award is stated as £23,731.52 with a prescribed element of £18,376.32 and an excess over that element of £5,385.20.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent entered no appearance or evidence, so the tribunal held the dismissal unfair under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The reasons section contains an internal date inconsistency: one paragraph refers to dismissal on 25 June 2019, while another refers to 25 June 2018. | Upheld | — | £23,532 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to holiday pay for three days in the 2019 holiday year and for 15 days carried over from 2018. The reasons refer to figures of £204.91 and £1,024.56, but the final monetary award section does not clearly isolate those sums. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £23,732
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,855
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £18,676
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
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.