Case 2408951/2023 · Employment Tribunal
X v Y HELD AT: Manchester by CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408951/2023
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fearon REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
X
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Manchester by CVP before Employment Judge Fearon on 11 March 2024, dismissed the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal as not well founded. No separate remedy was awarded on that claim.
The tribunal found the claimant's wrongful dismissal claim, pleaded as non-payment of notice pay, to be well founded. It recorded that the respondent had already paid the sum due of £1,666.67.
The tribunal also found the claimant's claim for holiday pay for 3 days to be well founded and recorded that the respondent had already paid £230.76. The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim described as wrongful dismissal (non-payment of notice pay). The judgment records that the respondent had already paid the sum due. | Upheld | — | £1,667 |
| Holiday pay | Claim was for 3 days' holiday pay. The judgment records that the respondent had already paid the sum due. | Upheld | — | £231 |
| Other | Respondent's counterclaim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,897
- 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.
- 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.