Case 2400207/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Anker v Medmigration Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2400207/2019
- Decision date
- 19 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Anker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 29 November 2019, Employment Judge Howard recorded that Mrs D Anker's claim of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed. The judgment also recorded that the claim for unlawful deductions from pay under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The claimant's breach of contract claim, identified in the judgment as a claim for unpaid notice of termination of employment, succeeded. The respondent, Medmigration Limited, was ordered to pay the claimant £7,324.79. The judgment also included the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the relevant decision day stated as 19 December 2019 and the calculation day as 20 December 2019.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was for unpaid notice of termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £7,325 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,325
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.