Case 1400925/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr R Manners (shareholder of Respondent) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400925/2019
- Decision date
- 2 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Southampton, before Employment Judge Gray sitting alone, dismissed the Claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. The judgment records that the constructive unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. No separate remedy was awarded for that claim.
The Claimant succeeded on her claim for payment in respect of 3 days' accrued but untaken holiday. The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the gross sum of £160.71.
The tribunal also found that the Claimant had not been provided with a written statement of initial employment particulars. On that basis, it ordered the Respondent to pay £348, described in the judgment as 2 weeks' pay, as compensation. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £508.71.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The Claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Claimant succeeded on a claim for payment of 3 days' accrued but untaken holiday and was awarded the gross sum of £160.71. | Upheld | — | £161 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the Claimant was not provided with a written statement of initial employment particulars and ordered payment of £348, stated to be 2 weeks' pay, as compensation. | Upheld | — | £348 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £509
- 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.