Case 3300080/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Mattock v Serious Food (SFD GB) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300080/2019
- Decision date
- 20 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Mattock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto determined the claimant’s claims against Serious Food (SFD GB) Limited without any additional findings recorded in the extracted text. The tribunal upheld the claim for damages for breach of contract in respect of notice pay and ordered the respondent to pay £1,261.34.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £581.25. The judgment records that this was the gross amount, and notes that if the respondent pays the tax and national insurance due to HMRC, payment of the net amount will meet the judgment debt. The tribunal further found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave and ordered payment of £802.78. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £2,645.37.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for damages for breach of contract in respect of notice pay succeeded under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £1,261 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross amount. | Upheld | — | £581 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in lieu of entitlement to annual leave. | Upheld | — | £803 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,645
- 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.
- 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.