Case 2411516/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Edwards v Seaways Services (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411516/2021
- Decision date
- 26 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newstead Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs T Edwards resigned, and the tribunal held that she was entitled to terminate her contract without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct within s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal treated the resignation as a dismissal and found that the dismissal was unfair in all of the circumstances of the case.
The tribunal awarded a basic award only for the unfair dismissal claim. It calculated that award at gross pay of £526 per week multiplied by 28.5, producing £14,991.
The tribunal also ordered £2,104, described as 4 x £526, in respect of the failure to provide a written statement of particulars. The total award was therefore £17,095.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant resigned in circumstances entitling her to terminate without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, and found the dismissal unfair in all the circumstances. | Upheld | — | £14,991 |
| Other | Award for failure to provide a written statement of particulars, calculated as 4 x £526. | Upheld | — | £2,104 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,095
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £14,991
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.