Case 3315344/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Zych v Northants Vision Plus Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3315344/2020
- Decision date
- 28 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen Date
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Zych
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at Watford Employment Tribunal on 15 October 2021 before Employment Judge Allen sitting alone. The judgment records that the remote video hearing was not objected to by the parties and that the tribunal considered the matter on the papers in an 83-page bundle.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's breach of contract claim for notice pay, stating that it was not well made. It also dismissed the claim for automatic unfair dismissal, identified in the reasons as dismissal for asserting a statutory right under section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996, and the separate unfair dismissal claim under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996, each being described as not well made.
The dispositive order states that all claims brought by the claimant were dismissed. The extracted judgment does not record any monetary award, split remedy, or separate findings on compensation.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract relating to notice pay; the tribunal said it was not well made and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim described by the tribunal as automatic unfair dismissal, namely dismissal for asserting a statutory right under section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996; it was not well made and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal said it was not well made and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.