Case 1306483/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Sarah Loffman v Ladybird Day Nurseries Ltd t/a Ladybird Nursery Heard: Remotely (by Cloud Video Platform) – Midlands West — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306483/2020
- Decision date
- 27 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Power
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Sarah Loffman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Sarah Loffman had worked as a nursery nurse for Ladybird Day Nurseries Ltd t/a Ladybird Nursery since 22 June 2015 under a contract dated 3 April 2019. After the respondent's emails of 18 and 19 March 2020 about the nursery closing because of Covid-19, she received a letter on 26 March 2020 stating that she would be laid off with effect from 27 March 2020. The tribunal found that the contract did not contain a right to lay off, that the employment ended on 27 March 2020, and that the respondent did not attend the hearing after its responses were struck out.
The tribunal held that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy within s.139(1)(a) ERA 1996 because the respondent had closed the business as a result of the first Covid-19 lockdown. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because there had been no warning, consultation, notice, pool, selection exercise, or consideration of alternatives such as furlough. The tribunal recorded that redundancy was a potentially fair reason, but the dismissal was unfair in the circumstances, and it made no Polkey reduction. It also found that the claimant reasonably declined a zero-hours role offered at the end of May or beginning of June 2020 and did not reduce her loss for that reason.
On remedy for unfair dismissal, the claimant received a statutory redundancy payment of £1,384.96 based on four weeks at £346.24 per week, and no separate basic award was payable because it was extinguished by the redundancy payment. The compensatory award was £4,912.18, made up of £4,282.18 for post-notice loss, £105 for lost pension contributions, and £525 for loss of statutory rights. The tribunal stated that the prescribed element for the Recoupment of Benefits Regulations was £4,282.18, covering 25 April 2020 to 4 April 2022, with an excess of £630.
The breach of contract claim succeeded because the claimant was entitled to four weeks' notice and was dismissed without effective notice. Damages were £1,384.96 gross for notice pay plus £30 for pension contributions during the notice period. The unlawful deduction from wages claim also succeeded: the respondent had not paid in lieu of 5.7 days of accrued but untaken annual leave, and the tribunal awarded £374.37 gross, subject to tax and employee national insurance. The total award was £8,086.47.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal found unfair because there was no warning, consultation, notice, pool, selection exercise, or consideration of alternatives such as furlough. No Polkey reduction was made; the compensatory award included loss of statutory rights and lost pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £4,912 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment calculated as 4 weeks at £346.24 per week. The tribunal said no separate basic award was payable because it was extinguished by the redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were £1,384.96 gross for four weeks' notice pay plus £30 for pension contributions during the notice period. | Upheld | — | £1,415 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction for 5.7 days of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination. Award was the gross sum due, subject to tax and employee national insurance. | Upheld | — | £374 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,086
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £4,912
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.118(1) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd 1988 ICR 142 HL
- s.139(1)(a) ERA 1996
- Part XI ERA 1996
- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 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.