Case 3306709/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Grainger v Emtac Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306709/2024
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Grainger
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing in Norwich on 30 July 2025 before Employment Judge M Warren, the Tribunal found both of Mrs J Grainger's complaints well-founded. The respondent, Emtac Limited, did not attend. The first complaint concerned notice pay and was upheld as a breach of contract claim, with £11,250 awarded as damages calculated on gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being due as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The second complaint concerned holiday pay. The Tribunal found that the respondent had been in breach of contract by failing to pay holiday accrued but not taken when the claimant's employment ended, and awarded £692.32. The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that sum. The total payable under the judgment was £11,942.32.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay complaint found well-founded; damages awarded on a gross basis to reflect likely tax treatment as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £11,250 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint in respect of holiday pay found well-founded; tribunal found breach of contract in failing to pay holidays accrued but not taken on termination. | Upheld | — | £692 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,942
- 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.
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.