Case 2500195/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Hawthorne v Miss J Sutherst — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500195/2019
- Decision date
- 26 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Hawthorne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Middlesbrough found that Miss Hawthorne had been unfairly dismissed. It rejected her claim to a redundancy payment, but upheld her complaint that Miss Sutherst breached the contract of employment by failing to pay notice pay. It also upheld the complaint for holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal ordered payment of £3,705 for unfair dismissal, made up of a basic award of £156.60 and a compensatory award of £3,548.40. It also ordered £156.60 as damages for breach of contract and £362.13 as the remaining holiday pay agreed between the parties, making a total of £4,223.73 across the claims. The record states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied to the unfair dismissal award, with a prescribed element of £2,570.20 for the period 13 December 2018 to 26 July 2019 and a balance of £1,134.80; it also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,705 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £157 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £362 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,224
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £157
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,548
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.