Case 2302268/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Hobden v Innfrant Limited Heard — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302268/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Hobden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs J Hobden’s claims were heard on 20 January 2022 at Ashford before Employment Judge Pritchard. The judgment records that the redundancy payment claim and the unfair dismissal claim were dismissed upon withdrawal, and that the claim for unpaid wages was dismissed.
On the wrongful dismissal claim, the Respondent accepted that it had wrongfully dismissed the Claimant because it failed to give notice or compensate her accordingly. By consent, the tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £218.76 net. The judgment does not record any separate award structure beyond that agreed sum.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal recorded that the redundancy payment claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Respondent accepted that it wrongfully dismissed the Claimant by failing to give notice or compensate her accordingly, and by consent the tribunal ordered payment of £218.76 net. | Settled | — | £219 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as a claim for unpaid wages, which was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £219
- 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.