Case 3324802/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Mr D. Charity (Consultant) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3324802/2019
- Decision date
- 30 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs M Jorgensen was constructively unfairly dismissed by Busy Bee Cleaning Services Ltd. The judgment does not record any separate discrimination finding or other liability outcome. The hearing was before Employment Judge Smail at Watford on 29 and 30 June 2020, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr D. Charity.
The tribunal ordered compensation to be paid within 14 days. It listed a basic award of £11,025.00 and further loss-based heads for 17 weeks' lost net earnings at £560.82 per week (£9,533.94), retraining costs of £922.00, and £500.00 for loss of statutory rights. The judgment stated a grand total of £22,050.94.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was "constructively unfairly dismissed". The judgment then listed a basic award of £11,025.00 and compensation heads for 17 weeks' lost net earnings at £560.82 per week (£9,533.94), retraining costs (£922.00), and loss of statutory rights (£500.00), with a stated grand total of £22,050.94. The itemised heads sum to £21,980.94, leaving a £70 difference unexplained in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £22,051 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,051
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £11,025
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,956
- 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.