Case 6019016/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Rosemary Curtis v United Care Concepts Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6019016/2025
- Decision date
- 17 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rosemary Curtis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Cadney decided that the claim could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that Rosemary Curtis was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,597.52. It also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,195.04.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,480. The total amount payable was £9,272.56.
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. | Upheld | — | £2,598 |
| Redundancy | The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £5,195 |
| Holiday pay | Payment for holiday entitlement that the respondent failed to pay. | Upheld | — | £1,480 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,273
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.