Case 3313474/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Barbeary v Parrott & Coales LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313474/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Barbeary
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Matthews determined the claim on the papers. The judgment records that the claimant, Ms E Barbeary, had brought claims arising from her dismissal by Parrott & Coales LLP (In Voluntary Liquidation).
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £5,512.26. It also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,058.84.
The claim in respect of tax and national insurance was dismissed because the tribunal held that the respondent's liability was to HMRC, not to the claimant. The total amount payable to the claimant was £7,571.10.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was awarded as damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £5,512 |
| Other | The claim in respect of tax and national insurance was dismissed because the respondent's liability was to HMRC, not the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,059 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,571
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.