Case 2417514/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mrs N Shukla (director of respondent company) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417514/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Manchester by CVP on 15 February 2021 before Employment Judge Johnson, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mrs N Shukla, the director of the respondent company. The judgment records two claims: an unpaid redundancy payment claim and a breach of contract claim.
The complaint of an unpaid redundancy payment was found not well founded and was dismissed. The breach of contract complaint was found well founded and succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,026.00 in respect of remedy for the breach of contract claim.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided unless requested by a party within 14 days. The judgment itself does not set out further findings or a separate breakdown of the £1,026 award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claimant's complaint of an unpaid redundancy payment was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's complaint of breach of contract was found well founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £1,026.00 in respect of remedy for this complaint. | Upheld | — | £1,026 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,026
- 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.