Case 2602108/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Adams v The Treasure Inn Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602108/2022
- Decision date
- 27 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hutchinson, sitting alone in Nottingham on 23 January 2023, found that Mrs N Adams had been dismissed by The Treasure Inn Limited by reason of redundancy. On that basis, the tribunal held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,040.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £992 as compensation for that claim. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant her holiday entitlement and awarded £500.
The total sum payable to the claimant was £2,532. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided unless requested within 14 days.
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 entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,040 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded compensation for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £992 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant her holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,532
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £992
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.