Case 1400949/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Bunn v Blackwater Equestrian Centre Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400949/2019
- Decision date
- 16 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Bunn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Southampton hearing on 28 August 2019, before Employment Judge Dawson, the respondent did not appear. The tribunal read the respondent's email of 23 August 2019 and recorded that the respondent had paid £949 to the claimant on that date without specifying how it should be allocated.
The tribunal was satisfied that, when proceedings were issued, the claimant was entitled to £232 in respect of non-payment of notice pay and £879 in respect of untaken holiday at the date of termination. It applied the £949 payment first against the accrued holiday entitlement and then against the notice pay balance.
On that basis, the tribunal found the claimant's breach of contract claim to be well founded and ordered the respondent to pay the remaining £162. No separate award for injury to feelings, interest, or other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the claimant was entitled, as at issue of proceedings, to £232 for unpaid notice pay and £879 for untaken holiday. It noted that the respondent had paid £949 on 23 August 2019 without specifying the allocation, and applied that payment first to accrued holiday and then to notice pay, leaving £162 outstanding. | Upheld | — | £162 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £162
- 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.