Case 1306353/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Goodchild & Mrs J Lowcock v Ceased Trading 05673115 Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306353/2024
- Decision date
- 29 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walker Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Goodchild & Mrs J Lowcock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 28 and 29 July 2025, before Employment Judge Walker, the tribunal held that both claimants, Mrs J Goodchild and Mrs J Lowcock, were unfairly dismissed. It awarded Mrs Goodchild a compensatory award of £7,610.46 and Mrs Lowcock a compensatory award of £9,455.30. The tribunal also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply because neither claimant claimed state benefits after dismissal.
The tribunal found that each claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996: £1,415.25 for Mrs Goodchild and £945.00 for Mrs Lowcock. It also upheld their holiday pay complaints, finding that the respondent had failed to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when their employment ended, and awarded £939.80 to Mrs Goodchild and £985.50 to Mrs Lowcock.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages during the period 1 March 2024 to 12 April 2024. It awarded the gross sums deducted, being £1,698.30 to Mrs Goodchild and £1,701.00 to Mrs Lowcock. In addition, it found that when proceedings began the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide written statements of employment particulars, and under section 38 Employment Act 2002 awarded £629.00 to Mrs Goodchild and £630.00 to Mrs Lowcock, finding no exceptional circumstances that would make a two-week award unjust or inequitable.
The tribunal reduced each gross award by £500.00 to reflect sums paid by the respondent after dismissal. It therefore ordered the respondent to pay Mrs Goodchild £11,792.81 and Mrs Lowcock £13,216.80 in total.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mrs J Goodchild; the tribunal found her unfairly dismissed and awarded a compensatory award of £7,610.46. | Upheld | — | £7,610 |
| Unfair dismissal | Mrs J Lowcock; the tribunal found her unfairly dismissed and awarded a compensatory award of £9,455.30. | Upheld | — | £9,455 |
| Redundancy | Mrs J Goodchild; the tribunal held she was entitled to a redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,415 |
| Redundancy | Mrs J Lowcock; the tribunal held she was entitled to a redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £945 |
| Holiday pay | Mrs J Goodchild; the tribunal upheld the holiday pay complaint for accrued but untaken holiday on termination and awarded £939.80. | Upheld | — | £940 |
| Holiday pay | Mrs J Lowcock; the tribunal upheld the holiday pay complaint for accrued but untaken holiday on termination and awarded £985.50. | Upheld | — | £986 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mrs J Goodchild; the tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages for the period 1 March 2024 to 12 April 2024 and awarded the gross sum deducted. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,010
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £17,066
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.