Case 2503617/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Miller v Mrs C Rowell (T/A “Bebes”) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503617/2019
- Decision date
- 2 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Venue
- Teesside Justice Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Miller
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 18 December 2019 at Teesside Justice Hearing Centre, Employment Judge Johnson heard the claimant in person and the respondent in person. The tribunal recorded the claimant's complaint of breach of contract as a failure to pay notice pay and found that complaint well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant compensation for breach of contract in the sum of £2,019.72.
The tribunal also dealt with two further monetary claims. The claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The claimant's claim for a redundancy payment was also found not well-founded and was dismissed. No separate reasons or further remedy components were recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract based on failure to pay notice pay was well-founded and ordered compensation in that sum. | Upheld | — | £2,020 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was found not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim for a redundancy payment was found not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,020
- 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.