Case 2403969/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Ashworth Mrs G Neill v Nicola Barrett t/a Nicola Tanning Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2403969/2018
- Decision date
- 29 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Ashworth Mrs G Neill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent details to Nicola Barrett t/a Nicola Tanning Limited. It found that Ms R Ashworth and Mrs G Neill succeeded in their claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unpaid notice of termination of employment and unpaid accrued holiday.
It ordered Ms Ashworth to be paid £2,829.92, made up of a basic award (described in the judgment as a redundancy payment) of £761.40, loss of statutory rights of £338.40, notice pay of £1,174.18 and holiday pay of £555.94. It ordered Mrs Neill to be paid £7,923.21, made up of a basic award of £3,952.00, loss of statutory rights of £608.00, notice pay of £2,581.50 and holiday pay of £781.71.
The tribunal stated that the recoupment provisions did not apply to the award. The attached interest notice recorded a relevant decision day of 29 May 2019, a calculation day of 30 May 2019 and a stipulated interest rate of 8%.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | For both claimants; the award included the judgment's basic award/redundancy payment and loss of statutory rights components. | Upheld | — | £5,660 |
| Breach of contract | For both claimants; this covered unpaid notice of termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £3,756 |
| Holiday pay | For both claimants; this covered unpaid accrued holiday. | Upheld | — | £1,338 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,753
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,713
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £946
- 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.
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.