Case 1800404/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Janney v Harvard Technology Limited (In Administration) AT A HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800404/2019
- Decision date
- 17 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Janney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claim was in time. It recorded that the claim had been presented on 13 March 2019, within the three-month period from 10 December 2018 as extended by the 13-day nominal period of Early Conciliation during which the clock was stopped.
The claim for a protective award succeeded. The respondent, which had entered no appearance and did not attend the hearing, was ordered to pay the claimant remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 10 December 2018.
No monetary total was stated in the written judgment. The tribunal recorded that regulations 6, 7 and 8 of the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996 apply, and that any award would be postponed pending any recoupment notice by the Secretary of State in respect of relevant benefits received by the claimant in the prescribed period, with only the balance then payable directly to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment identifies the successful claim as a claim for a protective award. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category, so it is classified as other rather than redundancy_pay because no statutory redundancy payment claim is adjudicated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996 regulations 6, 7 and 8
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.