Case 6016853/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. F. Evans v Liverpool Trading Ltd. — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016853/2024
- Decision date
- 6 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. F. Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 30 October 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response within time, and Judge Callan determined that part of the claim could properly be decided under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £732.16 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £732.16.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant outstanding holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £343.20 gross. The judgment also contained the standard notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990: the relevant decision day was 5 March 2025, the calculation day was 6 March 2025, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum if sums remained unpaid after the 14-day period.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Award for notice pay, described in the judgment as dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; sum stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £732 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment in this amount. | Upheld | — | £732 |
| Holiday pay | Award for outstanding holiday entitlement, stated as gross. | Upheld | — | £343 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,808
- 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.