Case 1400928/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Chamulewicz v Jessica Davies — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400928/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Chamulewicz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Miss C Chamulewicz was both an employee and a worker of the Respondent within the meanings of s.230(1) and s.230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim for notice pay failed and was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,407. It also found that, when the proceedings were begun, the Respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of particulars of employment under s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Applying s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, the Tribunal increased the sums awarded to the Claimant by £669.22, described in the judgment as two weeks' pay. The total amount ordered was £2,076.22.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim for notice pay failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal found the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,407 |
| Other | When proceedings began, the Respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of particulars of employment under s.1 ERA 1996. Under s.38 Employment Act 2002, the sums awarded were increased by £669.22, described as two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £669 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,076
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.