Case 2402725/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Barber v Roudh Enterprise Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402725/2022
- Decision date
- 21 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Barber
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing on 16 November 2022, Employment Judge Ficklin heard the claimant in person and recorded that the respondent made no appearance. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record therefore contains only the outcomes and awards.
The tribunal found the claimant’s amended unfair dismissal claim well-founded and awarded £9,120.00. It also found the breach of contract claim, identified in the judgment as notice pay, well-founded and awarded £4,560.00 gross of tax and national insurance.
The tribunal further found the holiday pay claim well-founded and awarded £683.05 gross of tax and national insurance. The total award recorded in the judgment was £14,363.05.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The amended unfair dismissal claim was found well-founded and awarded £9,120.00. | Upheld | — | £9,120 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was for notice pay and was awarded £4,560.00 gross of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £4,560 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was awarded £683.05 gross of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £683 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,363
- 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.