Case 2410056/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Monkhouse v Blue Chip Management Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410056/2019
- Decision date
- 2 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Monkhouse
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21. It found that Blue Chip Management Ltd breached Mrs A Monkhouse's contract by failing to pay her in lieu of notice in full. Damages for that breach were assessed at £695.40, calculated on the claimant's gross pay for the notice period. The judgment also notes that, once paid, HMRC is likely to require tax and national insurance to be deducted as Post-Employment Notice Pay.
The tribunal further found that Mrs A Monkhouse was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,564.65. The figure was stated to reflect 6 years' continuous service when aged over 41, at a week's pay of £173.85. The hearing listed for 7 October 2019 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay her in lieu of notice in full. Damages were assessed on the claimant's gross pay for the notice period. | Upheld | — | £695 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. The judgment states that the amount represented 6 years' continuous service when aged over 41, at a week's pay of £173.85. | Upheld | — | £1,565 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,260
- 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.