Case 1400400/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss Hannah Daubney (2) Mrs Rosemary Savage v Mrs Deborah Lugg — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400400/2023
- Decision date
- 6 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss Hannah Daubney (2) Mrs Rosemary Savage
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants, Miss Hannah Daubney and Mrs Rosemary Savage, appeared in person. The respondent, Mrs Deborah Lugg, did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal heard the case at Bristol by video on 23 February 2024, and the written judgment records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claimants' claims for unpaid annual leave, finding those claims were not well-founded. It upheld the claimants' claims for redundancy pay under s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996 and for notice pay under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunal (England and Wales) Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994.
The respondent was ordered to pay Miss Daubney £1,704 in redundancy pay and £1,420 in notice pay. Mrs Savage was awarded £855 in redundancy pay and £342 in notice pay. The total sum ordered was £4,321.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claimants' claims for unpaid annual leave were found not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Redundancy pay was awarded under s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996: Miss Daubney £1,704 and Mrs Savage £855. | Upheld | — | £2,559 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was awarded under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunal (England and Wales) Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994: Miss Daubney £1,420 and Mrs Savage £342. | Upheld | — | £1,762 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,321
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunal (England and Wales) Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
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.