Case 3334706/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Cleathero, litigation friend For the v Mr M Bloom, solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 3334706/2018
- Decision date
- 10 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Cleathero, litigation friend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's complaint that she had been constructively unfairly dismissed by the respondent was well founded and succeeded. The written judgment records the outcome in summary form and does not set out detailed findings of fact or a cited legal test in the extract provided.
On remedy, the tribunal considered it just and equitable to reduce the basic award for unfair dismissal to nil. It also decided that it would not be just and equitable to make any compensatory award in the claimant's favour. The judgment does not record any other monetary component.
The resulting award on the face of the judgment is nil. The decision is dated 10 September 2021 and records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with no written reasons provided in the written record unless separately requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed and that the complaint succeeds. No separate per-claim monetary figure is given in the written record. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- 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.