Case 1600788/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R. Lovelady v Mrs J. Fowler trading as Daniel James — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600788/2019
- Decision date
- 12 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R. Lovelady
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs R. Lovelady was unfairly dismissed by Mrs J. Fowler trading as Daniel James on 19 February 2019 for a reason related to her conduct. It also held that the respondent breached the claimant's contract in relation to notice, and recorded both claims as well-founded and successful.
The judgment states that, because of the risk that the claimant might have been fairly dismissed without notice, any award would be reduced to reflect that risk. No separate remedy hearing was held. Instead, when judgment was announced, the parties agreed to settle the successful claims, and the respondent was ordered to pay £524.44.
The claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed because there was no evidence or submissions on that issue. The judgment does not record any discrimination claims or any cited legal tests.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that Mrs R. Lovelady was unfairly dismissed on 19 February 2019 for a reason related to her conduct. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal also found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract regarding notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because there was no evidence or submissions on the issue. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £524
- 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.