Case 2500375/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Herrington v Health Finder Pro Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500375/2021
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Herrington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 26 May 2021, Employment Judge Arullendran recorded that Miss J Herrington’s wrongful dismissal claim was well-founded. The tribunal ordered Health Finder Pro Limited to pay £257.22 as a gross award, with the claimant responsible for any tax and national insurance due on that sum.
The tribunal also found the claimant’s claim under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 well-founded and ordered compensation of £514.44. The respondent’s counterclaim was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £257 |
| Other | Claim under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002; the written record does not give further reasons. | Upheld | — | £514 |
| Other | Respondent counterclaim dismissed; the judgment text records the counterclaim case number as 2500480/2001. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £772
- 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.