Case 1300861/2021 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300861/2021
- Decision date
- 28 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Hudson brought complaints including unfair dismissal and breach of contract against Boots Management Services Limited. Employment Judge Perry, sitting alone, found that the unfair dismissal complaint concerning her dismissal on 17 December 2020 was not well founded and dismissed it.
The tribunal also dismissed the breach of contract complaint, finding that the claimant was not dismissed in breach of contract.
Separately, the judgment records that it was agreed the respondent had failed to compensate the claimant in relation to accrued holiday leave at the termination of her employment. By agreement, the respondent was ordered to pay £132.06 gross to the claimant in respect of that accrued leave.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 17 December 2020 was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed in breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | It was agreed that the respondent had not compensated the claimant for accrued holiday leave at termination, and by agreement the respondent was ordered to pay £132.06 gross. | Settled | — | £132 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £132
- across all upheld claims
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.