Case 2408152/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Hurd v North West Accounts Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408152/2022
- Decision date
- 17 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Hurd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The employment judge therefore proceeded to determine the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that Mrs J Hurd was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered North West Accounts Ltd to pay gross damages of £1,064.00.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,599.15. The written record included the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest would not be payable if the sums were paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day and identifying 17 February 2023 as the relevant decision day, 18 February 2023 as the calculation day, and 8% per annum as the stipulated rate.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered gross damages of £1,064.00. | Upheld | — | £1,064 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,599.15. | Upheld | — | £1,599 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,663
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.