Case 2502275/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Matthews v Aspen Wolf Limited (in liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502275/2023
- Decision date
- 8 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Newcastle by CVP on 15 February 2024 before Employment Judge Loy sitting alone. The reserved judgment dated 8 March 2024 records that Mrs S Matthews succeeded in her claim for unfair dismissal against Aspen Wolf Limited (in liquidation). The judgment also states that her claim for unpaid notice pay succeeded.
The tribunal further found that the claimant’s claim for unpaid accrued holiday upon termination was well founded and succeeded. In contrast, the claimant’s unpaid wages claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
No remedy figure is recorded in the judgment itself. Instead, the tribunal directed that a separate remedy hearing would take place by CVP on 20 March 2024, with a separate notice and case management orders to follow.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records this as a claim for unpaid notice pay; no separate wrongful dismissal label is used in the text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records this as a claim for unpaid accrued holiday upon termination; the written reasons do not specify a separate statutory label. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the unpaid wages claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.