Case 1806692/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Danford v BSC Recovery & Rescue Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806692/2021
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Danford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 17 December 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Maidment determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 8 April 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Miss C Danford had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,875.57. It also found that she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,731.28.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £918.36. The total sum awarded by the judgment was £4,525.21.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,876 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,731 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to the respondent failing to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £918 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,525
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.