Case 2401309/2024 · Employment Tribunal
J Martin v Harley Ultrasound Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401309/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
3 namedClaimant
J Martin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondents had failed to present a valid response in time. On that basis, the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made without a full hearing, and the listed hearing on 21 May 2024 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Ms J Martin had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment from Harley Ultrasound Ltd in the sum of £1,179.66. It also found that the first respondent breached her contract of employment by failing to pay pension contributions due, and ordered damages of £169.89 for that breach.
The claims against the second respondent, Harley Ultrasound trading as 'Vivo', were dismissed as a result of the judgments made against the first respondent. The judgment also included an interest notice stating that interest would be payable on any qualifying award if not paid within 14 days of the written decision, with interest calculated from 1 May 2024 at 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,180 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £170 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,350
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.