Case 6017963/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Harford v Dendro Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017963/2025
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Harford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms J Harford, brought complaints against Dendro Limited which were heard by Employment Judge Emery sitting at London Central by CVP on 24 October 2025. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend.
The Tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay 12 weeks' notice pay of £8,076.96, calculated on a gross basis to reflect the likelihood that the sum would be taxable as Post Employment Notice Pay. The Tribunal also found the holiday pay complaint well-founded, holding that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay accrued but untaken holiday on termination, and ordered payment of £2,692.40.
Under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £16,153.92.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | 12 weeks' notice pay totalling £8,076.96 awarded as damages for breach of contract, calculated using gross pay. | Upheld | — | £8,076 |
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deduction from wages: respondent failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination. | Upheld | — | £2,692 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment determined under s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £16,153 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £26,923
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.163 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.