Case 2400051/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Stuart Crone v Oakwoods Construction Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400051/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy Date
- Venue
- Manchester via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Stuart Crone
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant’s complaint of breach of contract in relation to one week’s notice pay. It ordered Oakwoods Construction Group Limited to pay Stuart Crone the gross sum of £1,249.85 as damages for breach of contract, subject to any deductions for tax and national insurance contributions before payment.
The tribunal dismissed the separate breach of contract complaint in relation to two weeks’ notice pay while the claimant was on two paid weeks’ holiday. The written record also included the standard Employment Tribunals interest notice, stating that interest would be payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the award remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, but no quantified interest sum was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to one week’s notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,250 |
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to two weeks’ notice pay while the claimant was on two paid weeks holiday. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,250
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,250
- 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.