Case 1401540/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Charlotte Lane v Chambers Media Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401540/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Charlotte Lane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Rayner heard the case at Southampton on 26 February 2021, with the claimant appearing by CVP and the respondent's director, Mr Chambers, initially attending by CVP but then not remaining in the hearing. The tribunal proceeded in the respondent's absence after attempts were made to contact him. The judgment was sent to the parties on 9 March 2021.
The tribunal held that Miss Charlotte Lane had been wrongfully dismissed without notice. It found that she was entitled to 4 weeks' paid notice and ordered Chambers Media Ltd to pay £1,538.46 gross in respect of notice pay.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of 3 days' holiday pay. It ordered payment of £230.40 gross for that holiday pay. The total sum payable by the respondent was recorded as £1,768.86, made up of the notice pay and holiday pay awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed without notice and awarded 4 weeks' notice pay, stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £1,538 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of 3 days' holiday pay and awarded the gross amount claimed. | Upheld | — | £230 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,769
- 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.