Case 1305475/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr G Beasley (Consultant) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305475/2019
- Decision date
- 8 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final merits hearing on 8 January 2020 before Employment Judge Perry, sitting alone, the parties agreed that Mrs Dawn Crumpton was entitled to a redundancy payment of £731.70. The judgment records that this sum was agreed rather than separately assessed by the tribunal.
The claimant's breach of contract and holiday pay complaints were also addressed. The parties agreed that both complaints had been presented out of time, and the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time and that, in any event, they were not presented within a further reasonable period. On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear those complaints and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | It was agreed that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £731.70. | Upheld | — | £732 |
| Breach of contract | The parties agreed this complaint was presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and, in any event, it was not presented within a further reasonable period, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The parties agreed this complaint was presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and, in any event, it was not presented within a further reasonable period, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £732
- 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.