Case 1310724/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms J Gould (solicitor) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1310724/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final merits hearing in Birmingham on 18 March 2021 before Employment Judge Perry, the respondent agreed that the claimant was entitled to one week’s contractual notice pay. That sum was agreed at £472.88 gross. The judgment also records that a relevant Code of Practice applied to that complaint and that the respondent failed to comply with it.
The tribunal found that failure unreasonable and held that it was just and equitable in all the circumstances to increase the award by 10%. The award on the notice pay complaint was therefore increased to £520.16 gross, subject to pension contributions and statutory deductions.
The judgment states that the claimant’s remaining complaints were dismissed. The text does not separately describe those dismissed complaints, so their classification follows the case listing categories.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the respondent agreed the claimant was entitled to one week’s contractual notice pay, quantified at £472.88 gross. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to comply with a relevant Code of Practice, considered that failure unreasonable, and increased the award by 10% to £520.16 gross before pension contributions and statutory deductions. | Upheld | — | £520 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the claimant’s remaining complaints. This claim type is inferred from the case listing categories; the judgment does not separately identify the dismissed complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses the claimant’s remaining complaints. This claim type is inferred from the case listing categories; the judgment does not separately identify the dismissed complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £520
- 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.