Case 1400667/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Paxton Holby v AND Heartlands Trust (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400667/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Paxton Holby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made under Rule 21 after the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint did not proceed: the tribunal recorded that she had insufficient service to complain of unfair dismissal and that the claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The tribunal found that Miss Paxton Holby was dismissed without notice on 31 January 2024. Her breach of contract claim was well founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay two weeks' notice pay in the net sum of £442.62.
The tribunal also found that the claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay was well founded. The respondent was ordered to pay five days' pay in the gross sum of £221.31. No interest, basic award, compensatory award, or other remedy component was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant had insufficient service to complain of unfair dismissal and that the claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The award was two weeks' notice pay in the net sum of £442.62. | Upheld | — | £443 |
| Holiday pay | The award was five days' accrued but unpaid holiday pay in the gross sum of £221.31. | Upheld | — | £221 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £664
- 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.