Case 1400523/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Bailey v Mobility Services International LLC — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400523/2025
- Decision date
- 4 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs C Bailey presented her claim in the Bristol Employment Tribunal on 6 March 2025. The respondent, Mobility Services International LLC, did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
On the merits recorded in the judgment, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £11,653. It also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,750.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £20,403 in total. The judgment does not split the total into any further heads of loss beyond the notice damages and redundancy payment identified in the reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £11,653. | Upheld | — | £11,653 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £8,750. | Upheld | — | £8,750 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,403
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £11,653
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.