Case 1301224/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Broadhurst v CM community care services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301224/2021
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Amy Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Broadhurst
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Amy Smith heard the matter at Birmingham on 18 February 2022 and amended the respondent's name to CM Community Care Services Ltd. The tribunal recorded that there was no requirement for further service.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim, finding that the respondent dismissed Ms M Broadhurst without giving her the full period of notice to which she was entitled. It awarded damages of £203.87 as a gross sum.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's claim for accrued but untaken holiday, finding that the respondent failed to pay holiday in lieu and ordering £142.50 as a gross sum.
Finally, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a statement of particulars and ordered payment of £407.74. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without the full period of notice to which she was entitled; damages were ordered as a gross sum. | Upheld | — | £204 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday and ordered payment of a gross sum. | Upheld | — | £143 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide a statement of particulars and ordered payment of a gross sum. | Upheld | — | £408 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £754
- 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.