Case 1402604/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Karen Brettle v AND Thrive Chiropractic Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402604/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Karen Brettle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remedy judgment issued in chambers on 12 March 2021 after the respondent's response had been struck out. The tribunal recorded that Miss Brettle was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment, breach of contract damages for notice pay, and accrued but unpaid holiday pay.
The redundancy payment was assessed at £5,512.50, calculated as 7 weeks at 1.5 times the gross weekly pay of £525.00. The breach of contract claim succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay seven weeks' notice pay in the net sum of £4,621.82. The holiday pay claim also succeeded, with an award of one week's pay in the gross sum of £923.08.
No separate findings on liability reasoning were set out beyond the strike-out context, and no interest or additional compensation was recorded. The judgment date was 12 March 2021, and it was sent to the parties on 6 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £5,512.50, calculated as 7 weeks x 1.5 at £525.00 gross per week. | Upheld | — | £5,513 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered seven weeks' notice pay in the net sum of £4,621.82. | Upheld | — | £4,622 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered payment of accrued but unpaid holiday pay for one week in the gross sum of £923.08. | Upheld | — | £923 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,057
- 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.