Case 2402274/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Wharton v Carole Barnes trading as Ribblesdale Analysing Services — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402274/2019
- Decision date
- 24 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Wharton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Ross Date determined three claims brought by Mrs S Wharton against Carole Barnes trading as Ribblesdale Analysing Services. The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,724.84.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,812.00. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £227.07.
The judgment records no separate findings on interest or any other remedy beyond those three sums. The total of the awards made is £9,763.91.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £2,724.84. | Upheld | — | £2,725 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £6,812.00. | Upheld | — | £6,812 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £227.07. | Upheld | — | £227 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,764
- across all upheld claims
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.