Case 3314650/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Frame, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 3314650/2020
Decision date: 19 July 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tynan Appearances

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr D Frame, Solicitor For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hearing in Cambridge by CVP on 6 and 7 June 2022, before Employment Judge Tynan, the tribunal recorded that the claim against the First Respondent was dismissed because it had been withdrawn by the Claimant.

The tribunal upheld the Claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint against the Second Respondent, Ransomes Jacobsen Limited, under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record states only that the complaint succeeded; no separate liability reasons are included in the extracted text.

On remedy, the tribunal recorded that but for the unfair dismissal there was a 25% chance the Claimant would have been retained in the role of Credit Manager with the Respondent on a full-time basis with commensurate remuneration. The extracted judgment does not record a monetary award, and the note states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested after oral reasons at the hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The claim against the First Respondent was dismissed because it had been withdrawn by the Claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The Claimant’s complaint that she was unfairly dismissed by the Second Respondent contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.