Case 2502458/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Hobbs v Procare Total Cleaning Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502458/2022
- Decision date
- 13 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MURDIN
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Hobbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Newcastle on 9 May 2023, Employment Judge Murdin, sitting alone, ordered Procare Total Cleaning Services Limited to pay Mrs Hobbs gross sums of £3,087.50 in respect of unfair dismissal, £500 for loss of statutory rights, and £475 for failure to provide a contract of employment. The judgment also records that the claim for failure to pay notice pay succeeded, but no additional award was made on that head.
The tribunal then applied a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS procedure and a 40% reduction for Polkey, producing a net sum of £3,046.88. The order states that this sum was to be paid within 21 days of receipt of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a gross sum of £3,087.50 in respect of unfair dismissal before applying a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS procedure and a 40% Polkey reduction. | Upheld | — | £3,088 |
| Other | The judgment awarded £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded £475 for failure to provide a contract of employment. | Upheld | — | £475 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for failure to pay notice pay succeeded, but the tribunal made no additional award on that head. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,047
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS procedure
- Polkey
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.