Case 1302257/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Lucy Bromley v A K News Limited t/a Supernews — 2019
- Case reference
- 1302257/2019
- Decision date
- 30 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge The
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Lucy Bromley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after no response had been presented within the requisite time limit. On the material before the Employment Judge, the tribunal dealt with the case on the papers and made findings in favour of the claimant, Miss Lucy Bromley, against A K News Limited t/a Supernews.
The tribunal upheld the claim for breach of contract in respect of notice pay and awarded £150 gross damages. It also declared that the respondent had failed to pay holiday pay in accordance with the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £240 gross.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars and made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 of 4 weeks' pay, assessed at £600. The awards recorded in the judgment total £990 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract in respect of notice pay; damages awarded in the sum of £150 gross. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal declared that the respondent failed to pay holiday pay in accordance with the Working Time Regulations 1998 and ordered payment of £240 gross. | Upheld | — | £240 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; award made under s38 of the Employment Act 2002 of 4 weeks' pay, quantified at £600. | Upheld | — | £600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £990
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- s38 Employment Act 2002
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.