Case 2207072/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Cox v Armstrong Teasdale Management Limited (In Administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207072/2021
- Decision date
- 18 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Cox
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at London Central Employment Tribunal on 16-18 May 2022 before Employment Judge Gordon Walker. The claimant, Mrs K Cox, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The written judgment records three claims: unfair dismissal under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, and holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Each of those claims was found not well founded and dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's full reasons, because it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the decision. On the face of the written judgment, no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.