Case 3307224/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Ashworth v Homan Tyre Company Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307224/2023
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Ashworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningUnder Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Employment Judge Hutchings found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £466.88. The judge also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £791.25.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, with the sum to be determined at a remedy hearing. The claims of unfair dismissal and failure to provide a contract of employment also succeeded, with the remedy to which the claimant is entitled to be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages of £466.88 awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £467 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment of £791.25 awarded. | Upheld | — | £791 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement; sum to be determined at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim succeeds; remedy to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a contract / written statement of employment particulars; remedy to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,258
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.