Case 3322891/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3322891/2021
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Karen Palmer appeared in person and the respondent did not attend or represent itself. Employment Judge Postle found that Norfolk Feather Company Limited (in liquidation) was in breach of contract because it failed to pay notice. The judgment states that the claimant was entitled under her contract to 12 weeks' notice and awards net damages of £7,843.80.
The tribunal also found that, on termination, the claimant had accrued and untaken four days' holiday, for which it ordered payment of £372.49. It further awarded a 25% uplift of £2,054.07 for failing to follow any procedure in relation to the termination of employment. The decision records a total award payable of £10,870.36.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract for failing to pay notice and said the claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' notice. | Upheld | — | £7,844 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had accrued and untaken four days' holiday at termination. | Upheld | — | £372 |
| Other | A 25% uplift was awarded for failing to follow any procedure in relation to the termination of employment. The judgment does not separately label the underlying cause of action, and the stated total award of £10,870.36 does not mathematically reconcile with the visible component amounts. | Upheld | — | £2,054 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,870
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,216
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.