Case 2300171/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S v E Tucker and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300171/2019
- Decision date
- 28 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mrs S
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal entered judgment that the claimant was entitled to an award against the first respondent, Glen Pullen. The first respondent did not return an ET3.
The claimant provided details in her ET1 and in evidence of sums due from her employer. The Tribunal awarded redundancy pay, pay in lieu of notice, holiday pay, and compensation for unfair dismissal.
For unfair dismissal compensation, the Tribunal recorded that the claimant had not received state benefits and based the award on nine months out of work after taking into account the award for three months' pay in lieu of notice.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Tribunal awarded a redundancy payment against the first respondent, Glen Pullen. | Upheld | — | £5,690 |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal awarded pay in lieu of notice against the first respondent. | Upheld | — | £2,396 |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal awarded holiday pay against the first respondent. | Upheld | — | £67 |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal awarded compensation for unfair dismissal against the first respondent, based on nine months out of work and taking into account three months' pay in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £7,787 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,940
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £7,787
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.