Case 2300423/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms W Belton v Gold Cover Insurance Service Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300423/2022
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms W Belton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint well founded and awarded a basic award of £1,961.52. It said that, had it not been for the separate breach of contract award, it would have made the same one-week figure as a compensatory award for unfair dismissal, but it did not do so in order to avoid double recovery.
The breach of contract complaint also succeeded. The judgment describes it as a complaint that the claimant had been constructively dismissed, but the award was calculated as £326.92 gross, being one week’s pay lost after the summary dismissal. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was entitled to four weeks’ notice, and that she mitigated her loss after one week.
The redundancy payment complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant had not been dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal also upheld the holiday pay claim, awarding £326.92 gross for untaken annual leave on termination under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant had not received a statement of initial employment particulars under s1 Employment Rights Act 1996. It considered it just and equitable in all the circumstances to uplift its award by a further four weeks’ pay, which it quantified at £1,307.68. The total award was £3,923.04 gross, with the judgment noting that gross amounts were subject to tax treatment by the respondent where applicable.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded and awarded a basic award of £1,961.52. It said it would have made the same figure as a compensatory award for unfair dismissal, but did not do so to avoid double recovery because it made a separate award on the breach of contract claim. | Upheld | — | £1,962 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld the breach of contract complaint, described as a complaint that the claimant had been constructively dismissed, and awarded £326.92 gross. The amount was one week’s pay, reflecting loss after the summary dismissal and mitigation after one week, with the claimant having been entitled to four weeks’ notice. | Upheld | — | £327 |
| Redundancy | The claim for a statutory redundancy payment failed because the tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that compensation for untaken annual leave on termination was due under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and awarded £326.92 gross. | Upheld | — | £327 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the claimant had not received a statement of initial employment particulars required by s1 Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered it just and equitable to uplift the award by a further four weeks' pay, being £1,307.68. | Upheld | — | £1,308 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,923
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,962
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
3 references- regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- s1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable in all the circumstances
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.