Case 2602968/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Robson v Michael Frazer Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602968/2022
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Robson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal proceeded under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It found that Michael Frazer Limited had not provided Mrs J Robson with a written statement of employment particulars and, noting that no mitigation had been presented, awarded compensation equivalent to four weeks' pay, fixed at £364.60.
The tribunal also found that Mrs Robson was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,093.80 gross in damages. It further found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,734.50 gross.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay Mrs Robson's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £455.75 gross. The listed hearing on 27 March 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal awarded compensation equivalent to 4 weeks' pay under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £365 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £1,094 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,735 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement; the tribunal ordered payment of the outstanding amount gross. | Upheld | — | £456 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,649
- 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.