Case 3213407/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Melissa Anderson v Matalan Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3213407/2020
- Decision date
- 24 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Melissa Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered under Rule 21 after the Respondent failed to file an ET3 within the time limit. The tribunal considered the information in the claimant's ET1 and held that Ms Melissa Anderson's claim for unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded.
The tribunal also held that her claim for a redundancy payment under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded, subject to deduction of any sum actually paid. In addition, it held that her claim for holiday pay relating to accrued but untaken holiday was well founded, whether brought under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 or alternatively under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
No remedy figure was fixed in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the sums due from the Respondent to the Claimant would be determined at a separate remedy hearing, the date and time of which were to be notified to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found well founded under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 following the Respondent's failure to file an ET3; sums were left to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim for a redundancy payment under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found well founded; any sum already paid was to be deducted, and quantum was left to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay relating to accrued but untaken holiday, brought under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 or alternatively under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was found well founded; quantum was left to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.