Case 2413702/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Myers v Philip Archbold — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413702/2020
- Decision date
- 16 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Myers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs D Myers brought uncontested claims against Philip Archbold. Employment Judge Buzzard, sitting alone at a video hearing on 9 March 2021, recorded that the claimant’s claims were not contested and succeed. The judgment therefore made awards without any disputed liability findings.
The tribunal ordered a redundancy payment of £2,930, compensation of £1,953 for failure to give notice of dismissal, and £321 for accrued and untaken holiday. Those sums were calculated from agreed facts, including a gross weekly pay of £279 at dismissal, seven complete years of service, all of them over age 43, and 1.15 weeks of holiday accrued and untaken in the holiday year when employment ended.
The tribunal noted that the claimant was entitled to statutory minimum redundancy, notice and holiday. No separate findings on unfair dismissal, discrimination, or other heads of loss were made in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Uncontested claim; the tribunal ordered a redundancy payment calculated on the agreed facts and the claimant's entitlement to statutory minimum redundancy. | Upheld | — | £2,930 |
| Breach of contract | Award for failure to give notice of dismissal. | Upheld | — | £1,953 |
| Holiday pay | Award for accrued and untaken holiday on termination. | Upheld | — | £321 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,204
- 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.