Case 2409898/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Winston v James Andrew Prams & Nurseries Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409898/2022
- Decision date
- 12 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Winston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 15 December 2022. The respondent stated that the complaints set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the judgment were not contested, and the Employment Judge determined those parts of the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £581.37 gross, calculated as three weeks at £193.79. It also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £581.37 gross, again calculated as three weeks at £193.79.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £581.37 gross. The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The notice to the judgment recorded that statutory interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 would run from 13 June 2023 at 8% per annum if any award remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day of 12 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £581 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £581 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £581 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,744
- 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.