Case 1600357/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Hughes v Sana Heritage Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600357/2019
- Decision date
- 6 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ward JUDGMENT
- Venue
- Aberystwyth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs C Hughes was unfairly dismissed on 1 February 2018. It awarded £3,915 compensation for the unfair dismissal, described as three months' loss of wages.
It also found that Sana Heritage Ltd had failed to pay eleven weeks' notice pay and ordered £3,913.47. In addition, the tribunal ordered £995.15 for 12 days accrued but untaken annual leave, £5,870.20 as a redundancy payment, and £1,541.66 for outstanding wages plus £20.78 for failure to pay into the claimant's pension.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal on 1 February 2018 was unfair and awarded £3,915 compensation for three months' loss of wages. | Upheld | — | £3,915 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded for failure to pay eleven weeks' notice period. | Upheld | — | £3,913 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for 12 days accrued but untaken annual leave. | Upheld | — | £995 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded. | Upheld | — | £5,870 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award comprised £1,541.66 for outstanding wages plus £20.78 for failing to pay into the claimant's pension. | Upheld | — | £1,562 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,256
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,915
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.