Case 3313427/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Oliver, Consultant For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3313427/2019
- Decision date
- 11 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Oliver, Consultant For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford, Employment Judge Bartlett sitting alone heard the case on 21, 22 and 23 January 2020. The tribunal found that the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed within section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and it recorded that there was no element of contributory fault on the claimant's part.
The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded, and the claimant's claim for loss of employment rights succeeded. The tribunal then made a remedy award of £61,214.88, made up of a £47,971 compensatory award for unfair dismissal, £7,662.68 notice pay, a £5,080 basic award, and £500 for loss of employment rights.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found no contributory fault on the claimant's part. The remedy for this claim comprised a £47,971 compensatory award and a £5,080 basic award. | Upheld | — | £53,051 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim succeeded and notice pay was awarded at £7,662.68. | Upheld | — | £7,663 |
| Other | The claimant's claim for loss of employment rights succeeded and £500 was awarded for that head of loss. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £61,215
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,080
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £47,971
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 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.