Case 1806276/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Symes v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806276/2020
- Decision date
- 24 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms A Symes
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis remedy judgment was issued by Employment Judge Davies on 24 March 2021, following a Rule 21 judgment made on 18 March 2021. The respondent did not attend the CVP hearing, and the claimant appeared in person. The tribunal ordered KAM Enterprises Ltd to pay the claimant three sums arising from the earlier judgment.
First, the tribunal awarded £70.96 as damages for breach of contract for failure to pay the claimant two weeks' notice at 100% of her weekly pay. Second, it awarded £309.96 for holiday accrued but not taken when the employment ended, calculated on the basis of 37.8 hours at £8.20 per hour. Third, it awarded £709.60 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
In relation to the written particulars award, the tribunal recorded that there were no exceptional circumstances making it not just and equitable to award two weeks' pay, and that it was just and equitable to award four weeks' pay. The total payable to the claimant was £1,090.52, and the tribunal noted that enforcement action could be taken in the County Court if payment was not made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for failure to pay two weeks' notice at 100% of weekly pay. | Upheld | — | £71 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday accrued but not taken on termination, calculated as 37.8 hours x £8.20 per hour. | Upheld | — | £310 |
| Other | Award for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; the judgment states that it was just and equitable to award four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £710 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,091
- 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.