Case 2500227/2021 · Employment Tribunal
DIANE BARRY v NICHOLAS MASON (trading as MASONS CAFÉ AND FOOD BAR) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500227/2021
- Decision date
- 14 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge RODGER
- Venue
- THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
DIANE BARRY
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Rodger sat alone at Newcastle upon Tyne on 14 June 2021. The judgment records that Diane Barry’s claim for a redundancy payment under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and was dismissed. Her claim for breach of contract in respect of notice was also not well-founded and was dismissed.
The claimant’s separate claim for accrued holiday pay on termination succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent, Nicholas Mason trading as Masons Cafe and Food Bar, to pay £1,100. The extracted judgment does not set out further reasons beyond the outcome recorded in each head of claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for a redundancy payment under section 163 ERA 1996 was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay/breach of contract was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued holiday pay upon termination succeeded; the respondent was ordered to pay £1,100. | Upheld | — | £1,100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,100
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.