Case 1405387/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Diane Simpson v Bunches Farm Shop — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405387/2023
- Decision date
- 13 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Diane Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not enter a response and did not attend the hearing, so the tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21. Employment Judge Midgley heard the case by video at Bristol on 1 March 2024. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons was made within the stated period.
The tribunal found that Ms Diane Simpson was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that she was entitled to a redundancy payment. The amount awarded was £1,978. The note to the judgment records that this figure was calculated from a redundancy payment of £2,380.50 less £402.50 paid on account.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £1,121, which the note explains was for 12.5 days of annual leave at £89.78 gross per day. The total monetary award shown by the judgment is therefore £3,099.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,978. The note on the judgment states this was calculated as £2,380.50 less £402.50 already paid on account. | Upheld | — | £1,978 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,121. The note states this was for 12.5 days' annual leave at £89.78 gross per day. | Upheld | — | £1,121 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,099
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.