Case 2413587/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Harvey v Maidens Butchers Limited Appearances — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413587/2020
- Decision date
- 19 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Harvey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester on 10 February 2021 by Employment Judge Sharkett. The respondent did not appear. The tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 and made awards on the papers and the claimant's account.
The tribunal held that Maidens Butchers Limited unfairly dismissed Mrs N Harvey and ordered compensation of £1,151.04. It also found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £313.92.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £52.32. The sex discrimination claim was dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal. The judgment included a notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 stating that the stipulated rate of interest was 8%, but no separate interest figure was specified in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Awarded for failure to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £52 |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal at her request. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,151 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £314 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,517
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,151
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.