Case 4104399/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Henderson v Joseph Harley — 2026
- Case reference
- 4104399/2025
- Decision date
- 16 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Henderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's response was rejected, there was no outstanding application for reconsideration, and Employment Judge C McManus issued judgment on the available material under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The Tribunal found that Ms L Henderson was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay net damages of £4,613.28, calculated as 12 weeks at £384.44. It also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £13,736.40, calculated as £457.88 multiplied by 20 and by 1.5.
The Tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the net sum of £922.68 for 12 days at a net daily rate of £76.89. The three specified awards total £19,272.36.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice, calculated as 12 weeks at £384.44. | Upheld | — | £4,613 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment calculated as £457.88 x 20 x 1.5. | Upheld | — | £13,736 |
| Holiday pay | Payment for 12 days of unpaid holiday entitlement at a net daily rate of £76.89. | Upheld | — | £923 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,272
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.