Case 2406828/2023 · Employment Tribunal
K Jubb v Annette Mercer, trading as Little Acorns Day Nursery — 2025
- Case reference
- 2406828/2023
- Decision date
- 3 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
K Jubb
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Manchester by video platform before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone, held that the claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal and claims for notice pay and holiday pay were well-founded and succeeded.
The Tribunal dismissed the employer's contract claim as not well-founded. The written judgment records that the parties were given 28 days to try to resolve remedy, failing which a remedy hearing would be listed; no remedy figures were determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claim of constructive unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. Written reasons were not provided in this short written record. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for notice pay was well-founded and succeeded. No remedy amount was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was well-founded and succeeded. No remedy amount was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the employer's contract claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.