Case 2405695/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Watson v Total Physiotherapy Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405695/2022
- Decision date
- 5 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Watson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found that Ms C Watson had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £1,204.32 in damages. It also found that she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £2,888.00.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £18.40 gross. It upheld the complaint under TULRCA 1992 s188 and made a protective award requiring remuneration for the 90-day protected period beginning on 2 May 2022; the judgment states that the recoupment regulations apply.
The attached interest notice records the relevant decision day as 5 June 2023, the calculation day as 6 June 2023, and the stipulated interest rate as 8% per annum. The judgment does not state a separate sterling amount for the protective award element, so the overall total is not quantified in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,204 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,888 |
| Holiday pay | Gross sum for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £18 |
| Other | Protective award under TULRCA 1992 s188 for a 90-day protected period beginning 2 May 2022; the judgment does not state a sterling amount for this element. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- TULRCA 1992 s188
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 article 12
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.