Case 3302813/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Sharp v James Teasdale — 2020
- Case reference
- 3302813/2020
- Decision date
- 19 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Sharp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, James Teasdale, did not enter a response. The tribunal therefore entered judgment in favour of the claimant under Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The judgment states that Ms T Sharp was entitled to a redundancy payment of £768. It also states that she was owed notice pay and awarded compensation of £128. No further factual findings or reasons are set out in the short judgment beyond those entitlements.
The total award was £896, which the respondent was ordered to pay to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal entered judgment for the claimant under Rule 21 after the respondent did not enter a response. It found the claimant entitled to a redundancy payment of £768. | Upheld | — | £768 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal recorded that the claimant was owed notice pay and awarded compensation of £128. The judgment does not separately explain the legal basis beyond the notice pay label, so this has been classified as breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £128 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £896
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £128
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.