Case 1307354/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Tattersall v SMC 2016 Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1307354/2019
- Decision date
- 10 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Tattersall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs M Tattersall brought complaints against SMC 2016 Limited for unlawful deduction from wages, accrued holiday pay and statutory redundancy payment. The respondent did not attend the hearing. Employment Judge Flood, sitting alone in Birmingham on 10 February 2020, found the wage claim well founded in relation to 19 days unpaid wages and ordered the respondent to pay £950.
The tribunal also found the holiday pay complaint well founded in relation to 15 days accrued but untaken holiday pay, and ordered payment of £1,050. Separately, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £8,925. The written record states that the sums payable under the first two paragraphs were gross amounts, with the claimant responsible for any income tax and National Insurance contributions on them.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint well founded in relation to 19 days unpaid wages and ordered payment of £950. | Upheld | — | £950 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the complaint well founded in relation to 15 days accrued but untaken holiday pay and ordered payment of £1,050 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,050 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £8,925. | Upheld | — | £8,925 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,925
- across all upheld claims
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.