Case 2415615/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Ritson v Ritson Ground Works Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415615/2020
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hill REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Ritson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting before Employment Judge Hill on 9 February 2021, heard the claimant in person and recorded that the respondent did not attend. The judgment states that Ms A Ritson's claims for unfair dismissal, failure to pay redundancy pay, failure to pay notice pay, and unlawful deduction of wages all failed and were dismissed.
The extracted text contains no substantive findings on the underlying facts or legal reasoning beyond that outcome. It records that oral reasons were given at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No financial award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed in the judgment's summary of claims. The extracted text does not set out detailed reasons, only that oral reasons were given at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claim for failure to pay redundancy pay failed and was dismissed. No further reasoning appears in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mapped from the judgment's reference to failure to pay notice pay. The extracted text does not use a more specific label such as wrongful dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as part of the judgment's summary of claims. No detailed reasons are provided in the extracted text. | 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.