Case 1304160/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. Rebecca Watkin v Lady Bird Nurseries Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1304160/2021
- Decision date
- 9 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. Rebecca Watkin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim on the papers. The judgment records that Ms Rebecca Watkin’s claim was issued on 10 September 2021 and that the respondent, Lady Bird Nurseries Limited, did not file a valid response in time.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,358 net. It also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £1,780.83.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £712.95 net. The judgment states that the respondent must pay the claimant £3,851.78 net in total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded as damages, stated as £1,358 net. | Upheld | — | £1,358 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,780.83. | Upheld | — | £1,781 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £712.95 net. | Upheld | — | £713 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,852
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.