Case 1400470/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Shirley v G & A Investment Projects Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400470/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Shirley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss E Shirley, presented her claim in the South West Employment Tribunal at Bristol on 16 February 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
On the substance of the judgment, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £375.12. It also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £2,183.40.
The total sum ordered to be paid to the claimant was £2,558.52.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £375.12. | Upheld | — | £375 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £2,183.40. | Upheld | — | £2,183 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,559
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.