Case 1307245/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Gail Fellows v Apex Jewellers Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1307245/2019
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Gail Fellows
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Perry recorded that the parties had agreed the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment, or in the alternative a basic award, in the sum of £1,575.00. The judgment also records agreement that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract.
On that basis, the respondent was ordered to pay £576.92 gross as damages for breach of contract, after taking account of monies owed by the claimant for holidays taken in excess of those accrued. The judgment does not break out any further remedy by claim head beyond those sums.
The judgment states that the claimant’s remaining claims for compensation for unfair dismissal and her other complaints were to be determined at the final hearing. Those matters were not decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment records that it was agreed the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment or, in the alternative, a basic award in the sum of £1,575.00. | Settled | — | £1,575 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that it was agreed the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and orders the respondent to pay £576.92 gross as damages, taking account of monies owed by the claimant for holidays taken in excess of those accrued. | Settled | — | £577 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,152
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,575
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.