Case 2417077/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Howcroft & Mr A Coulborn v Prestige Blinds Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2417077/2019
- Decision date
- 11 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Howcroft & Mr A Coulborn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment, issued without a hearing under rule 60, records that both claimants’ claims for redundancy payments under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The respondent was Prestige Blinds Limited.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mrs P Howcroft £5,526.95 and Mr A Coulborn £14,437.00. No separate breakdown of the awards is given in the text beyond those sums.
The accompanying interest notice states that interest may accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if the sums are not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, which was stated to be 11 June 2020. The judgment itself does not record any interest amount or any additional remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Mrs P Howcroft: claim for redundancy payment under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. | Upheld | — | £5,527 |
| Redundancy | Mr A Coulborn: claim for redundancy payment under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. | Upheld | — | £14,437 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,964
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- The Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.