Case 3202667/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Warner v Woodford Haulage Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202667/2019
- Decision date
- 6 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, Employment Judge Russell found that Miss V Warner had been dismissed by Woodford Haulage Ltd in breach of contract because she was entitled to six weeks' notice under section 86(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay damages of £2,256.00 for that breach.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was therefore entitled to a redundancy payment. The redundancy payment was assessed at £2,850.00. The hearing listed for 6 April 2020 was cancelled following the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract because she was entitled to six weeks' notice under section 86(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,256 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,850 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,106
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.86(1)(b) ERA 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.