Case 3303931/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Bolton v ASAP Stevenage Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303931/2023
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Members
- Panel members
- Mrs Hancock, Mr Jewell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Bolton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Graham, sitting with Mrs Hancock and Mr Jewell, held that Miss H Bolton was unfairly dismissed by ASAP Stevenage Ltd. The judgment states that the issue of remedy for the dismissal would be decided at the hearing listed for 4 and 5 November 2024.
The written judgment also records that the remainder of the claim was not affected by this decision and would proceed to a liability hearing listed for 4 and 5 November 2024. No further reasons for the unfair dismissal finding are set out in the written judgment.
Separately, the tribunal allowed the claimant's application for costs under Rule 76(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The respondent was ordered to pay £616 for costs incurred because of its failure to comply with tribunal orders, with payment due by 18 September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The remedy hearing was listed for 4 and 5 November 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's Rule 76(2) costs application succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay £616 for costs incurred because of its failure to comply with tribunal orders, payable by 18 September 2024. | Upheld | — | £616 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £616
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 76(2) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.