Case 2414827/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hunter-Matthews v Julie Mark Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414827/2021
- Decision date
- 10 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hunter-Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Batten, sitting alone in Manchester, upheld three claims brought by Mr C Hunter-Matthews against Julie Mark Limited. The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £308.03.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been paid for accrued untaken holiday entitlement at the termination of employment and awarded 1.7 weeks' holiday pay in the gross sum of £533.66. In addition, the respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the tribunal awarded 2 weeks' pay under section 38(2)(b) in the sum of £616.06. The total award recorded by the judgment was £1,457.75.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £308.03. | Upheld | — | £308 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had not been paid for accrued untaken holiday on termination and awarded 1.7 weeks' holiday pay in the gross sum of £533.66. | Upheld | — | £534 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to give a written statement of particulars of employment under section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded 2 weeks' pay under section 38(2)(b) in the sum of £616.06. | Upheld | — | £616 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,458
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £308
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38(2)(b)
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.