Case 2500792/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Murray v GEC Solutions Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500792/2021
- Decision date
- 17 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Newcastle Employment Tribunals on 11 May 2021. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the matter, or part of it, under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the merits dealt with in the judgment, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £392.00. It also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,578.00.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £392.00. The total award was £2,362.00. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed following withdrawal of that claim by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £392.00. | Upheld | — | £392 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,578.00. | Upheld | — | £1,578 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded £392.00. | Upheld | — | £392 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,362
- 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.