Case 1304162/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. M. Smith v Lady Bird Nurseries Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1304162/2021
- Decision date
- 9 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. M. Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim, or part of it, on the papers. The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awards damages of £3,556.20 net for that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,019.18. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,384.60 net.
The judgment states that the respondent must pay the claimant £9,959.98 net in total. No separate award for interest, basic award, compensatory award, or injury to feelings is recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded on the basis that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £3,556 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £5,019 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,960
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.