Case 3304317/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Clemence, Solicitor For the v Banham Poultry Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 3304317/2018
- Decision date
- 7 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Clemence, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal at Norwich, before Employment Judge Postle, held that the Claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed. The judgment records that this was an unfair dismissal finding rather than a remedy-only decision, and it does not set out any additional reasons beyond the finding itself in the extracted text.
The Claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. The extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic relied on, so no further discrimination finding can be safely extracted from the judgment text provided.
As to remedy, the Tribunal awarded a statutory basic award of £4,724. It made no compensatory award because the Claimant had obtained alternative employment by 7 December 2018, and it also ordered payment of £350 in respect of loss of statutory rights, giving a total monetary award of £5,074.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the Claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed. It awarded a statutory basic award of £4,724 and made no compensatory award because the Claimant had obtained alternative employment by 7 December 2018. | Upheld | — | £4,724 |
| Other | The judgment records that the Claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. The extracted text does not identify the specific protected characteristic or characteristics. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,074
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,724
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.