Case 2601659/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Old Whittington Recreation Ground — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601659/2022
- Decision date
- 26 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Diane Marriott brought claims against Old Whittington Recreation Ground. The case was heard at Nottingham on 17 January 2023 before Employment Judge Hutchinson sitting alone. The respondent did not appear. In the judgment, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,264.80.
The tribunal also found that the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay £1,711.20 in compensation. A further finding was made that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant her holiday entitlement, for which £142.16 was awarded. The total sum due to the claimant was recorded as £6,118.16.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,264.80. | Upheld | — | £4,265 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,711.20 compensation. | Upheld | — | £1,711 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant her holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £142.16. | Upheld | — | £142 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,118
- 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.