Case 2501323/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Patterson v Miramar 246 Limited (In voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501323/2023
- Decision date
- 8 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Patterson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP at Newcastle on 8 August 2023 before Employment Judge Sweeney. The Respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal found that three complaints were well founded and succeeded: a statutory redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, accrued but untaken holiday pay under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations, and breach of contract in respect of the failure to give 4 weeks' notice. The amounts awarded were £1,523.07 for redundancy payment, £1,970.53 for holiday pay, and £1,628.64 for breach of contract damages.
The total amount ordered to be paid to the Claimant was £5,122.24.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996; tribunal found the complaint well founded and ordered payment. | Upheld | — | £1,523 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday pay under Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations; tribunal found the complaint well founded and ordered payment. | Upheld | — | £1,971 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for failure to give 4 weeks' notice; tribunal found the complaint well founded and ordered payment. | Upheld | — | £1,629 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,122
- 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.