Case 1804270/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Coldwell v The Body Doctor Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804270/2020
- Decision date
- 14 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Respondent had dismissed Miss Coldwell in breach of contract by failing to pay the correct payment in lieu of notice on termination of employment. It also found that the Respondent had failed to pay the amount due to her under the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of holiday pay on termination.
In both monetary claims, the Tribunal noted that by the date of the hearing the Respondent had paid the correct amounts, namely £1,403.92 for the notice payment and £1,530.01 for holiday pay. As a result, although the breaches were found, no award was made for damages or unpaid holiday pay.
The Claimant's claim concerning her belongings was dismissed because the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim. The case was heard remotely by video before Employment Judge Evans sitting alone on 14 December 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found the Respondent dismissed the Claimant in breach of contract by failing to pay the correct payment in lieu of notice on termination. By the date of the hearing, the Respondent had paid the correct amount (£1,403.92), so no damages award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Tribunal found the Respondent failed to pay the amount due under the Working Time Regulations 1998 on termination. By the date of the hearing, the Respondent had paid the correct amount (£1,530.01), so no award was made for unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The Claimant's claim in respect of her belongings was dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | 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.