Case 1801274/2022 · Employment Tribunal
I Hill v Harehills Labour Club — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801274/2022
- Decision date
- 26 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
I Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge D N Jones found that the claimant, I Hill, was unfairly dismissed by Harehills Labour Club. The judgment does not set out a disputed evidential narrative; it simply records the tribunal's findings under the Rule 21 universal template.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. It recorded that the claimant received no notice pay when she terminated her contract as a consequence of the respondent's repudiatory breach of contract. No monetary remedy was fixed in this judgment.
The judgment states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing on 12 July 2022, listed for 90 minutes. No award figures are given in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment: the tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a Remedy Hearing on 12 July 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and stated that she received no notice pay when she terminated her contract as a consequence of the respondent's repudiatory breach of contract. Remedy was to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.