Case 2503253/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs J Brydon v Samantha Hill & Christian Norwood (T/a Fattsams Butchers) — 2018

Case reference: 2503253/2018
Decision date: 20 December 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs J Brydon

Respondent

Samantha Hill & Christian Norwood (T/a Fattsams Butchers)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Johnson determined the claim on the papers. The tribunal found that Mrs J Brydon had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent, Samantha Hill & Christian Norwood trading as Fattsams Butchers, to pay damages of £1,761.75.

The tribunal also found that Mrs Brydon was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,836.70. No separate finding of unfair dismissal is recorded in the judgment text provided.

The hearing listed for 8 January 2019 was cancelled. The judgment records the two monetary awards but does not set out any additional remedy calculations, interest, or legal reasoning beyond the conclusions stated in the Rule 21 decision.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,761.75.	Upheld	—	£1,762
Redundancy	The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,836.70.	Upheld	—	£3,837

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £5,598; across all upheld claims

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.