Case 1402449/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Williams v Charlwood IFA Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402449/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- In Chambers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Williams worked part time for Charlwood IFA Ltd as a Property Manager/Accounts from 15 May 2017. In March 2020, as the Covid-19 pandemic developed, the parties exchanged messages about home working, furlough and the future of the role. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 3 May 2020, when the contractual notice expired, and that the respondent later made a redundancy payment of £478.64 on 19 May 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal found unfair under s.98 ERA 1996; the tribunal rejected redundancy as the reason and held the principal reason was the respondent's view that the claimant could not do her work from home. | Upheld | — | £4,471 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.23 ERA 1996 for unpaid notice-period wages; the tribunal held the claimant should be paid for the notice period. | Upheld | — | £993 |
| Holiday pay | Claim under reg. 30(1) WTR 1998 was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,464
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £458
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,013
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
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.