Case 2503534/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs GA Wright v Michael Wardle — 2019
- Case reference
- 2503534/2019
- Decision date
- 19 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs GA Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Johnson Date recorded that Mrs GA Wright had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The tribunal ordered the respondent, Michael Wardle, to pay damages of £1,330.08 for that breach of contract claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,493.90. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £509.84.
The judgment does not set out any separate liability analysis beyond those conclusions, and it does not record a separate split of the awards between broader remedy categories. On the figures stated, the total monetary sum awarded is £4,333.82. The listed hearing on 6 February 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,330.08. | Upheld | — | £1,330 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,493.90. | Upheld | — | £2,494 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £509.84. | Upheld | — | £510 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,334
- 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.