Case 1309117/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss G Hendy (2) Miss J Tomkinson (3) Miss H Roberts (4) Mr D Male v The New Inn Newport Limited (in substitution for Darren Wood) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1309117/2022
- Decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hussain Date
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss G Hendy (2) Miss J Tomkinson (3) Miss H Roberts (4) Mr D Male
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the claim against Darren Wood was dismissed and The New Inn Newport Limited was substituted as respondent in Miss Hendy's claim. The application to strike out the claims was refused. By consent, the claim by Ms Roberts in case 1309119/2022 and the duplicate claim by Miss J Tomkinson in case 1308880/2022 were dismissed upon withdrawal.
For Miss G Hendy, the tribunal held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996. The award was £2,654.28, calculated from six years' service and weekly pay of £442.38. Her complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was also well-founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £2,654.28 as damages, calculated as six weeks at £442.38 gross to reflect the likelihood that tax would be payable as Post Employment Notice Pay.
For Miss J Tomkinson, the tribunal held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 in the sum of £3,287.79, based on six years' service and weekly pay of £365.31. Her notice-pay breach of contract claim was well-founded, with damages assessed at £2,191.86 gross for six weeks at £365.31. Her holiday pay complaint was also well-founded under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and she was awarded £983.91 for 18 days of accrued annual leave, with tax or National Insurance to be paid by the claimant.
For Mr D Male, the tribunal found that he was an employee of the respondent at the relevant time and held that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,629 under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, based on six years' service and weekly pay of £181. His notice-pay breach of contract claim succeeded, with damages of £362 gross for two weeks at £181. His holiday pay claim also succeeded under the Working Time Regulations 1998, and he was awarded £323.54 for 35.75 hours of accrued annual leave, with tax or National Insurance payable by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Miss G Hendy (1309117/2022): redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,654 |
| Breach of contract | Miss G Hendy (1309117/2022): notice-pay breach of contract; damages of £2,654.28 gross (6 weeks x £442.38). | Upheld | — | £2,654 |
| Other | Claim no. 1309119/2022 by Ms Roberts was dismissed upon withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Duplicate claim no. 1308880/2022 by Miss J Tomkinson was dismissed upon withdrawal by consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Miss J Tomkinson (1309118/2022): redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £3,288 |
| Breach of contract | Miss J Tomkinson (1309118/2022): notice-pay breach of contract; damages of £2,191.86 gross (6 weeks x £365.31). | Upheld | — | £2,192 |
| Holiday pay | Miss J Tomkinson (1309118/2022): holiday pay claim under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998; £983.91 for 18 days accrued annual leave. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,087
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.