Case 2400054/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Woodend v Highcroft Care Blackpool Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400054/2020
- Decision date
- 3 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Woodend
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss H Woodend brought claims against Highcroft Care Blackpool Limited for unfair dismissal, breach of contract and holiday entitlement. The hearing took place in Manchester on 2 March 2020 before Employment Judge Benson, with the claimant not attending and the respondent represented by Miss J Hulmes.
The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have two years' service. The judgment states that the claim was struck out and dismissed. No written reasons were provided beyond the oral reasons given at the hearing.
On the remaining claims, the Tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed, so the breach of contract claim failed. It also found that the claimant had been paid her full holiday entitlement, so the holiday claim failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have two years' service. The judgment records that the claim was struck out and dismissed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed, so the breach of contract claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal found that the claimant had been paid her full holiday entitlement, so this claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.