Case 1306456/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Darley v Charles Linden Media Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306456/2024
- Decision date
- 28 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Darley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands West Employment Tribunal on 8 July 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Perry decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. On that basis, the tribunal dealt with the claim on the material before it.
The tribunal found that Mrs S Darley had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. It ordered the respondent, Charles Linden Media Limited, to pay the balance of the redundancy payment that remained due, assessed at £1,035.56.
Mrs Darley no longer wished to pursue a claim for holiday pay. That claim was therefore dismissed under Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2024. No other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and ordered payment of the balance of redundancy payment still due, namely £1,035.56. | Upheld | — | £1,036 |
| Holiday pay | The claimant no longer wished to pursue the holiday pay claim, so it was dismissed under Rule 51. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,036
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2024
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.