Case 2409836/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Chloe McCarthy Mr Sam Bridges v The Puckersley Inn Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409836/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fearon REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Chloe McCarthy Mr Sam Bridges
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester by CVP on 5, 6 and 7 February 2024 before Employment Judge Fearon. The extracted judgment records claims by Miss McCarthy and Mr Bridges against The Puckersley Inn Limited for unfair dismissal, holiday pay, and breach of contract; Miss McCarthy also brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages.
The tribunal dismissed every claim recorded in the order. Miss McCarthy's unfair dismissal, holiday pay, breach of contract, and unauthorised deductions claims were each found not well founded and dismissed. Mr Bridges' unfair dismissal, holiday pay, and breach of contract claims were also dismissed. The extracted text sets out the dispositive orders only and does not record separate reasons or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim brought by Miss McCarthy and Mr Bridges; both were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim brought by Miss McCarthy and Mr Bridges; both were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim brought by Miss McCarthy and Mr Bridges; both were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded in the order for Miss McCarthy only; 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.
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.