Case 2401710/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Beach v Manor House Properties Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2401710/2019
- Decision date
- 5 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Beach
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Miss Beach's unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' qualifying service with Manor House Properties Limited at the date of dismissal. It also found that her dismissal was not for any reason that would remove the need for qualifying service, so the statutory unfair dismissal claim did not succeed.
The claimant succeeded on her claim for six weeks' notice pay. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,344, calculated as six weeks' gross pay at £224 per week, and noted that the sum was likely to be subject to tax as post-employment notice pay.
The tribunal also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim in respect of £517 taken from the claimant's final salary payment. The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed as not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' qualifying service and the dismissal was not for any reason that removed the need for qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Six weeks' notice pay succeeded; the tribunal ordered £1,344, calculated as six weeks' gross pay at £224 per week and noting that tax may be payable as post-employment notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,344 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim that £517 had been deducted from the claimant's final salary payment succeeded. | Upheld | — | £517 |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim was found not well-founded and dismissed; the judgment does not state its legal basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,861
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,861
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.