Case 2602778/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Kumar v Mr Ashley Cox — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602778/2021
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Kumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination on the papers. The judgment records no contested hearing and no separate reasons beyond the findings set out in the orders.
The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed Ms B Kumar in breach of contract in relation to notice period and ordered damages of £2,557.50. It also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £7,672.
The tribunal further found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,083.20. The total payable under the judgment was £12,312.90.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice period and awarded damages of £2,557.50. | Upheld | — | £2,558 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,672. | Upheld | — | £7,672 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,083.20. | Upheld | — | £2,083 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,313
- 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.