Case 2415421/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Procter v CAG Print Solutions Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415421/2021
- Decision date
- 20 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy Date
- Venue
- Manchester via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Procter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Procter brought claims including notice pay, redundancy pay and holiday pay against CAG Print Solutions Limited (in voluntary liquidation). The respondent did not attend the hearing, which took place on 17 June 2022 by Cloud Video Platform, and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's notice pay and redundancy pay claims had been settled by the Insolvency Service. Those claims were therefore dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
The claimant's holiday pay claim was only partially settled by the Insolvency Service. However, the tribunal found that she was unable to provide evidence of what holiday entitlement remained outstanding and unpaid, so the holiday pay claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant's claim for notice pay was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant because it had been settled by the Insolvency Service. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant's claim for redundancy pay was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant because it had been settled by the Insolvency Service. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that holiday pay had been partially settled by the Insolvency Service, but the claimant could not provide evidence of any outstanding unpaid holiday entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.