Case 3311614/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Mitchell v Mr G E Nosworthy, trading as Cree Godfrey & Wood — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311614/2021
- Decision date
- 31 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Mitchell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Watford Employment Tribunals on 14 June 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with an entitlement to 12 weeks' notice and weekly gross pay of £509.63, producing damages of £6,115.56 gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of 19 x 1.5 x £509.63, amounting to £14,524.46. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement of 16.75 days and ordered payment of £1,707.33 gross for holiday pay. The total gross sum payable was £22,347.35.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with entitlement to 12 weeks' notice and weekly gross pay of £509.63. | Upheld | — | £6,116 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment calculated as 19 x 1.5 x £509.63. | Upheld | — | £14,524 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement of 16.75 days and awarded gross holiday pay at £101.93 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,707 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,347
- 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.