Case 1302877/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For v Ms V Clyde — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302877/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting at Birmingham on 16 March 2023 before Employment Judge Gaskell, made awards in two linked cases, 1302877/2022 brought by Ms M Darby and 1302878/2022 brought by Ms M Haynes. The judgment records awards for unpaid redundancy payment, unpaid notice pay, and unpaid holiday pay. Ms Darby was awarded £22.20 for redundancy, £304.00 net for notice pay, and £138.78 net for holiday pay, producing a total of £465.58 net. Ms Haynes was awarded £1,824.00 for redundancy, £1,216.00 net for notice pay, and £384.35 net for holiday pay, producing a total of £3,424.35 net.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The awards were stated to be net of income tax and national insurance contributions, with the respondent to make the corresponding payment to HMRC. No further factual findings or legal reasoning are set out in the written decision record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Awards for unpaid redundancy payment were made to both claimants: Ms M Darby £22.20 and Ms M Haynes £1,824.00. | Upheld | — | £1,846 |
| Breach of contract | Awards for unpaid notice pay were made to both claimants: Ms M Darby £304.00 net and Ms M Haynes £1,216.00 net. | Upheld | — | £1,520 |
| Holiday pay | Awards for unpaid holiday pay were made to both claimants: Ms M Darby £138.78 net and Ms M Haynes £384.35 net. | Upheld | — | £523 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,890
- 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.