Case 1600350/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Gundogdu v Cramers (NW) Ltd. (Company number: 12059060) HELD AT: Mold — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600350/2024
- Decision date
- 10 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Gundogdu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Gundogdu was employed by Cramers (NW) Ltd as a manager from 4 May 2019 until summary dismissal by reason of redundancy on 16 November 2023. She had also been a director from 19 June 2019 until her resignation as director only on 14 August 2022. The respondent was absent and entered no response to the claim.
Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan found that the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy, breach of contract in respect of notice of termination, and failure to pay holiday pay were all well-founded and succeeded. The judgment records that the claimant had an oral contract of employment under which statutory minimum terms applied.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the sums claimed in the claimant's professionally prepared schedule of loss, totalling £5,228.70. That total comprised a basic award of £1,374.12 for unfair dismissal, £916.08 for breach of contract, and £2,938.50 for holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found well-founded as unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy; ordered a basic award only. | Upheld | — | £1,374 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in respect of notice of termination succeeded. | Upheld | — | £916 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday pay succeeded. | Upheld | — | £2,939 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,229
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,374
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.