Case 1805254/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805254/2019
- Decision date
- 7 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Sheffield on 7 April 2020 before Employment Judge Little. The claimant appeared in person and there was no attendance or appearance for the respondents. The judgment was issued as an interim judgment under Rule 21 after the second respondent, Soothill Pre School Limited, failed to enter a response to the claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £591.12. It also found that the dismissal was without notice and therefore in breach of contract, awarding £591.12 in damages, stated to represent four weeks' notice pay.
In addition, the tribunal awarded £628.80 for holiday pay and £290.93 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. The sums ordered in the judgment total £2,101.97 and were directed to be paid by the second respondent forthwith.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £591 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £591 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £629 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £291 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,102
- 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.