Case 2305442/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Janice McCarthy v Polhill Floral Designs Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305442/2019
- Decision date
- 1 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Janice McCarthy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent did not present a response within the stipulated time. Employment Judge Martin recorded that the claimant, Ms Janice McCarthy, succeeded on the claims before the tribunal on the basis of the documents before it.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,559.25. It also found that she was entitled to outstanding holiday accrued on termination of employment and ordered the respondent to pay £321.30.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and ordered payment of a redundancy payment of £2,338.88. The judgment does not record any separate compensatory, basic award, interest, or other remedy components beyond those three sums.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,559.25. | Upheld | — | £1,559 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to outstanding holiday accrued on termination of employment and ordered payment of £321.30. | Upheld | — | £321 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and ordered a redundancy payment of £2,338.88. | Upheld | — | £2,339 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,219
- 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.