Case 1310823/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Circus v Epoch Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1310823/2022
- Decision date
- 31 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Battisby Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Circus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands West Employment Tribunal on 18 December 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £1,906.00 representing one month's net pay. The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £1,627.90. The respondent had also failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, for which £2,024.38 was awarded.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £5,558.28 in total, and the hearing listed for 4 August 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for one month's net pay in respect of notice; dismissal in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,906 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded; claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | £1,628 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations / Unlawful Deduction; classified here as holiday_pay as the judgment refers specifically to holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £2,024 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,558
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.