Case 2407294/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Kathleen Coulthard v Carrs Billington Agriculture (Sales) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407294/2023
- Decision date
- 14 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kathryn Gibson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Kathleen Coulthard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Kathleen Coulthard brought complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract against Carrs Billington Agriculture (Sales) Limited. Employment Judge Kathryn Gibson sat alone at Manchester and gave the judgment orally at the hearing. The unfair dismissal complaint under section 98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay was not well-founded and dismissed it. No substantive remedy was awarded to the claimant on either complaint.
By agreement, the claimant was ordered to pay the respondent £2,500 inclusive of VAT in costs, payable within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was brought under section 98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 and was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint related to notice pay and was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,500
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.