Case 3311441/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Perks v Iris Clothing Limited (formerly known as Iris Fashion Limited) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3311441/2020
- Decision date
- 23 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Perks
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mrs C Perks against Iris Clothing Limited (formerly known as Iris Fashion Limited). The tribunal held that the claimant's breach of contract claim for notice pay was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £340.
The tribunal also found the claimant's breach of contract claim for redundancy pay well-founded and ordered payment of £382.50. A further breach of contract claim for holiday pay was likewise upheld, with £170 awarded.
In addition, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £170 for failure to provide an initial statement of written terms and conditions. The judgment gives no further reasons beyond recording that each claim was well-founded and stating the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was found well-founded and awarded £340. | Upheld | — | £340 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for redundancy pay was found well-founded and awarded £382.50. | Upheld | — | £383 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for holiday pay was found well-founded and awarded £170. | Upheld | — | £170 |
| Other | The tribunal ordered £170 for failure to provide an initial statement of written terms and conditions. | Upheld | — | £170 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,063
- 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.