Case 6015790/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Fryer v Ryall Property Consulting Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015790/2025
- Decision date
- 23 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Fryer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent in the Manchester Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Cookson. The written record states that the respondent, Ryall Property Consulting Ltd, shall pay Ms R Fryer £538.46 gross in respect of her entitlement to notice pay.
The judgment records that the figure is shown as gross to reflect the likelihood that the claimant will have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. No other claims, findings of liability, or contested factual issues are recorded in the extracted judgment text.
The decision was announced orally at the hearing on 10 September 2025 and sent to the parties on 23 October 2025. The accompanying notice on interest states the relevant decision day as 23 October 2025, the calculation day as 24 October 2025, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum, but no separate interest sum is set out in the judgment record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment by consent. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £538.46 gross in respect of her entitlement to notice pay, described as gross because of the likelihood that tax would be payable as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Settled | — | £538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £538
- 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.