Case 1602399/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Rowley v Secretary of State for Business and Trade and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602399/2024
- Decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mrs S Rowley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in Mold by CVP on 3 September 2024 before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan, recorded that Mrs Rowley did not enter into or work under a contract of employment with Ballyhoo Media Ltd (R2). On that basis, the claim that R2 breached a contract of employment in relation to notice of termination failed and was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claim to a redundancy payment. It further recorded that Mrs Rowley was not entitled to payment of redundancy pay or notice pay from the Secretary of State for Business and Trade (R1). The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for a redundancy payment dismissed; the tribunal recorded that the claimant was not entitled to redundancy pay from R1. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim that R2 breached a contract of employment with regard to notice of termination dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant did not enter into or work under a contract of employment with R2. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.