Case 3200466/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Berrett-West v Layer de la Haye Parish Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200466/2024
- Decision date
- 19 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Berrett-West
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment finding that the Claimant, Mrs L Berrett-West, was unfairly constructively dismissed and wrongfully dismissed by the Respondent, Layer de la Haye Parish Council, and that she was owed holiday pay.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a total of £9,227.37 (without deductions for tax) within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties. The award was made up of a basic award of £768.56, a compensatory award of £5,862.80, damages for wrongful dismissal of £683.16, and holiday pay of £1,912.85.
The judgment text available does not set out detailed reasoning, legal tests, or factual findings beyond these conclusions, consistent with a Rule 21 default judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Judgment states the Claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. Basic award (£768.56) and compensatory award (£5,862.80) attributed to this claim. | Upheld | — | £6,631 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Damages for wrongful dismissal awarded as £683.16. | Upheld | — | £683 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay of £1,912.85 awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,913 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,227
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £769
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,863
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
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.