Case 2403501/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Mills v Mr Gary Nugent and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2403501/2024
- Decision date
- 3 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs C Mills
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Leach determined the claimant's complaints under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. The tribunal found that the breach of contract complaint relating to notice pay was well-founded and awarded £541.83 in damages, calculated on gross pay to reflect that the sum is likely to be treated as Post Employment Notice Pay for tax purposes. The tribunal further found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £812.75.
The tribunal also upheld the holiday pay complaint, finding that the respondents had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken at the end of her employment, and ordered payment of £180.61. The total sum payable was £1,535.19, with the respondents held jointly and severally liable. The hearing previously listed for 7 February 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim; tribunal awarded damages calculated using gross pay to reflect likely tax treatment as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £542 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £813 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken at termination. Claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £181 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,535
- 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.