Case 1405127/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Irene Maisie Dora Cleave v Roy Hurst T/A the Old Thatch Inn — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405127/2020
- Decision date
- 23 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Irene Maisie Dora Cleave
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal reconsidered its remedy decision on its own initiative under Rule 73 and, without a hearing, held that the claimant had been unfairly constructively dismissed by the respondent, Roy Hurst T/A the Old Thatch Inn. It kept the loss period for compensation at 10 November 2020 to 23 April 2021 and assessed the loss for that period at £7,533.78. It then deducted earnings of £2,805.59 but did not deduct Universal Credit, concluding that its earlier approach had not complied with the recoupment regulations and that the compensatory award should be £4,728.18.
The unfair dismissal remedy was therefore £6,364.70 in total, made up of a £972.10 basic award, a £4,728.18 compensatory award, a £364.42 ACAS uplift and £300 for loss of statutory rights. The judgment recorded a prescribed element of £4,728.18 for recoupment purposes and an excess of £1,636.52. The tribunal also noted that the reconsideration was determined without a hearing and that the respondent had agreed to that course.
Separately, the tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and by failing to pay wages for the period identified in the reasons. It ordered £9,072.93 for the breach of contract claims, comprising £4,212.43 for notice pay and £4,860.50 for unpaid wages, both on a gross basis so that the claimant would be responsible for any tax liabilities on those sums.
The claimant also succeeded in her holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal ordered payment of £2,139.54 net for accrued but unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal refused the claimant's application for costs relating to the postponed October 2021 hearing, and said any further costs application would need to be pursued through the tribunal office.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. On reconsideration it restored the compensatory award to £4,728.18, with a basic award of £972.10, an ACAS uplift of £364.42 and £300 for loss of statutory rights. Recoupment applied to the compensatory award, with the prescribed element set at £4,728.18. | Upheld | — | £6,365 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent was found to be in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice and by failing to pay wages for the period stated in the judgment. The award comprised £4,212.43 for notice pay and £4,860.50 for unpaid wages, both treated as gross sums. | Upheld | — | £9,073 |
| Holiday pay | The claimant succeeded on unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal ordered £2,139.54 net for accrued but unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £2,140 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,577
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £972
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,728
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 73 reconsideration
- s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.