Case 2501364/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Hall v Sharon Appleton — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501364/2023
- Decision date
- 9 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 9 October 2023, Employment Judge Aspden sat at Newcastle by video and heard the claim brought by Miss J Hall against Sharon Appleton. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal issued its judgment orally at the hearing and recorded the result in writing.
The tribunal held that Miss Hall was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. It also found that her complaint that the respondent had breached her contract of employment by terminating it without notice was well founded.
A further claim for holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was also upheld. The tribunal ordered payment of £1,094.10 as a statutory redundancy payment, £729.40 as damages for breach of contract in respect of notice, and £286.83 as holiday pay. The combined amount ordered was £2,110.33.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and ordered payment of £1,094.10. | Upheld | — | £1,094 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint that the respondent breached the contract by terminating without notice was well founded and awarded £729.40 as damages in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £729 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the complaint under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded and ordered payment of £286.83 in respect of holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £287 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,110
- 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.