Case 2411061/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Melissa Newnes v Meenacarn Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411061/2021
- Decision date
- 12 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Melissa Newnes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMeenacarn Limited failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that Ms Melissa Newnes had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of one week's pay, £142.56, calculated as 16 hours at £8.91 per hour.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £798.34, calculated as 89.6 hours at £8.91 per hour. The total payable was £940.90, to be paid within 14 days of the judgment. The notice attached to the judgment stated that unpaid sums would attract interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, but no separate interest amount was set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissal was found to be in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages were assessed at one week's pay, calculated as 16 hours at £8.91 per hour. | Upheld | — | £143 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; the award was calculated as 89.6 hours at £8.91 per hour. | Upheld | — | £798 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £941
- 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.