Case 1303573/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Brinkworth v Upstairs Downstairs Cleaning Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303573/2022
- Decision date
- 23 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Connolly
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Brinkworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Connolly, sitting alone in Birmingham on 23 February 2023, found that Miss K Brinkworth had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The tribunal also found that Upstairs Downstairs Cleaning Limited breached her contract of employment by failing to give notice of termination.
The judgment records that the claimant did not pursue a declaration of unfair dismissal, and that claim was therefore dismissed. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £1,985.90, made up of a redundancy payment of £853.86 and £1,132.04 for the notice breach, comprising £1,082.68 for loss of earnings and £49.36 for loss of pension benefits. The Recoupment Regulations were found not to apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £854 |
| Breach of contract | The award for this claim comprised £1,082.68 damages for loss of earnings and £49.36 damages for loss of pension benefits. | Upheld | — | £1,132 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant did not pursue a declaration that she was unfairly dismissed, and the claim was therefore dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,986
- 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.