Case 3305614/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Mather (counsel, instructed by Markel Law LLP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305614/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a brief judgment in which Employment Judge Smeaton, sitting alone at Watford by CVP on 26 March 2025, dealt only with two breach of contract claims brought by Mrs N Gova against Santa Bapoo t/a Santa Care. The respondent name was amended by consent. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The first claim was for breach of contract in respect of wages the claimant said were owed to her between February 2024 and May 2024. The tribunal recorded that this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. No separate award was made in relation to it.
The second claim was for breach of contract described in the judgment as constructive wrongful dismissal. The tribunal dismissed that claim and found that the respondent did not commit a repudiatory breach of the claimant’s contract. No remedy was awarded. The judgment was sent to the parties on 29 April 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract for wages said to be owed between February 2024 and May 2024. The judgment states it was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract (constructive wrongful dismissal). The tribunal found the respondent did not commit a repudiatory breach of the claimant’s contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.