Case 2603262/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sarah Clifford v Mr Clive Whiting — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603262/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
- Venue
- Leicester - remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sarah Clifford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting remotely before Employment Judge Ahmed alone on 22 January 2021, determined three claims brought by Ms Sarah Clifford against Mr Clive Whiting. It held that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of unpaid holiday pay and ordered payment of £1,051.00.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract for failing to give proper notice of termination of contract. It awarded the claimant £210.00 as damages for that breach. The judgment records these as separate monetary awards.
The complaint as to a redundancy payment was dismissed. No further written reasons were provided in the record because reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment is limited to the dispositive findings and awards.
The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £1,261.00, made up of the holiday pay award and the breach of contract damages.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,051 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to give proper notice of termination of contract. | Upheld | — | £210 |
| Redundancy | Complaint as to a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,261
- 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.