Case 3311047/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S J Pearson v Mereview Taverns Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311047/2024
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S J Pearson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South East Employment Tribunal on 13 December 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Hutchings determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,845.56. It further found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,768.36, and that the respondent had failed to pay her holiday entitlement, awarding £683.40.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £5,297.32 in total. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Hutchings on 16 September 2025 and sent to the parties on 7 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice (£1,845.56). | Upheld | — | £1,846 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment (£2,768.36). | Upheld | — | £2,768 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement (£683.40). Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £683 |
| Unfair dismissal | Listed by gov.uk as an unfair dismissal claim, but the rule 22 judgment does not expressly adjudicate or quantify an unfair dismissal claim separately from the breach of contract, redundancy and holiday pay determinations. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,297
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,768
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.