Case 2415896/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Roberts v Quinn Melville Barrow Solicitors LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415896/2020
- Decision date
- 12 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Regional Employment Judge Franey found that Mrs V Roberts had been dismissed by Quinn Melville Barrow Solicitors LLP in breach of contract in respect of notice. The claim succeeded on that basis and the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay damages.
The total award was £1,586.53. The judgment identified two elements within that sum: £1,442.32 representing the redundancy payment the claimant would have become entitled to had there been no breach of contract, and £144.21 representing annual leave, rounded down to 1.5 days, which would have accrued during the notice period at a daily rate of £96.14.
A separate notice attached to the judgment explained the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 position, stating that the relevant decision day was 12 January 2021 and the calculation day was 13 January 2021, with interest at the stipulated rate of 8% if sums remained unpaid after 14 days. No separate interest amount was quantified in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,586.53. | Upheld | — | £1,587 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,587
- 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.