Case 1301757/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sharon Mitchell v Carl’s Kitchen Ltd Heard: Birmingham (in person) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301757/2023
- Decision date
- 6 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sharon Mitchell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Sharon Mitchell brought claims against Carl’s Kitchen Ltd, and the tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Carl’s Kitchen Limited. The respondent did not attend the hearing in Birmingham before Employment Judge Codd on 6 July 2023.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, so the dismissal was not unfair on the basis alleged.
The tribunal awarded the claimant a redundancy payment of £2,310. It also ordered the respondent to pay £1,540 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, so the unfair dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal awarded a redundancy payment of £2,310. | Upheld | — | £2,310 |
| Other | Award under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £1,540 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,850
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.