Case 2501191/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Clark v Stokesley Taxis Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501191/2021
- Decision date
- 17 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn reconsideration under Rule 73, Employment Judge Newburn varied the earlier oral judgment and recorded the final decision without a further hearing. The Claimant's claims for a redundancy payment and for unlawful deductions from wages in respect of unpaid wages were dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant.
The Claimant's breach of contract / wrongful dismissal claim, which was for notice pay, was well founded and succeeded. The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay 3 weeks' pay in the gross sum of £604.80.
The reasons section states that the Tribunal had initially misdirected itself about responsibility for any tax and national insurance on the gross sum. The judgment was amended so that the Claimant, not the Respondent, is liable to the Inland Revenue for any sums due on that payment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions from wages in respect of unpaid wages was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract / wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay succeeded; the Respondent was ordered to pay 3 weeks' pay as a gross sum of £604.80. | Upheld | — | £605 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £605
- 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.