Case 3301253/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301253/2021
- Decision date
- 30 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Watford before Employment Judge French on 19 to 20 July 2022, dismissed Ms C Finch's unfair dismissal claim. It also dismissed the holiday pay claim because the respondent had already satisfied any amounts owing by payment to the claimant.
The tribunal recorded that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the claimant's pension entitlement issue. Separately, it found that the respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment and said that an award of 2 weeks' gross pay was appropriate, but noted that this had already been satisfied by payment to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said the respondent had already satisfied any amounts owing by payment to the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to deal with the claimant's pension entitlement claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment and said an award of 2 weeks' gross pay was appropriate, but recorded that this had already been satisfied by payment to the claimant. | 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.
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.