Case 1401716/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) E Dimmock (2) E Pockett (3) M Bysouth (4) K Davis v Lane & Co Solicitors and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401716/2024
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) E Dimmock (2) E Pockett (3) M Bysouth (4) K Davis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short remedies judgment. The tribunal recorded that all four claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy. It awarded the 1st claimant £2,500.80 redundancy pay, the 2nd claimant £4,750 redundancy pay and £500 for unpaid holiday entitlement, the 3rd claimant £3,170.99 redundancy pay, and the 4th claimant £6,115.20 redundancy pay.
The judgment also recorded total sums for the 2nd claimant of £5,250 and for the 4th claimant of £6,324.20, reflecting the addition of holiday pay to the redundancy payments. The total payable across all claimants was £17,245.99. No further reasoning is set out beyond the amounts due.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | 1st claimant; redundancy payment awarded after dismissal by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | £2,501 |
| Redundancy | 2nd claimant; redundancy payment element of the award. | Upheld | — | £4,750 |
| Holiday pay | 2nd claimant; unpaid holiday entitlement element of the award. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Redundancy | 3rd claimant; redundancy payment awarded after dismissal by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | £3,171 |
| Redundancy | 4th claimant; redundancy payment element of the award. | Upheld | — | £6,115 |
| Holiday pay | 4th claimant; unpaid holiday entitlement element of the award. | Upheld | — | £209 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,246
- 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.