Case 3313721/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Lisa Berlyn-Pancoust v Far Cotton Working Mens Club — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313721/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freshwater Representation
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lisa Berlyn-Pancoust
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 remedy judgment issued by Employment Judge Freshwater following a hearing at Cambridge Employment Tribunal on 22 April 2024. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal found each of the claimant's three claims well founded and made awards on that basis.
The tribunal held that the claim for holiday pay succeeded and ordered the respondent to pay £383.64 gross. The claim for notice pay also succeeded, with an award of £4,375.93 gross. The claim for a redundancy payment succeeded, with the claimant entitled to £4,544.10 gross. The total sum the respondent was ordered to pay was £9,303.67 gross.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided in this document. The judgment does not set out detailed factual findings, legal tests, or analysis beyond the statement that each claim was well founded under Rule 21.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the holiday pay claim well founded; award stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £384 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim succeeded; classified as breach of contract per §4.4 taxonomy. | Upheld | — | £4,376 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded. | Upheld | — | £4,544 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,304
- 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.