Case 2405536/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Lisa Jackson v Qures Manufacturing Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405536/2019
- Decision date
- 11 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lisa Jackson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a final hearing in Manchester on 28 August 2019, Employment Judge Hoey sitting alone recorded that, with the consent of the parties, the respondent’s details were amended to Qures Manufacturing Limited. The case concerned a claim by Lisa Jackson, and the written judgment records only the dispositive order rather than full written reasons.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant notice pay in the net sum of £1,500. On the face of the record, this was the only monetary award made, and the written decision does not break the award down into separate components or identify any additional heads of loss.
The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided unless requested within 14 days. The attached interest notice states that any unpaid award would attract simple interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the relevant decision day recorded as 11 September 2019 and the calculation day as 12 September 2019, at a stipulated rate of 8% if payment was not made within the relevant period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The final written judgment records an order that the respondent pay the claimant notice pay in the net sum of £1,500. The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided in the written record. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,500
- 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.