Case 2501405/2020 · Employment Tribunal
C Woodland v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501405/2020
- Decision date
- 30 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Woodland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal was well founded. It recorded that the amount of any basic award and any compensatory award calculated in accordance with sections 118 to 126 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was nil.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's complaint that the respondent breached her contract of employment by terminating it without notice was not well founded. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was found well founded, but the judgment states that the basic award and compensatory award calculated under sections 118 to 126 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 are nil. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint that the respondent breached the claimant's contract of employment by terminating it without notice was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 118 to 126 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.