Case 1601004/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Cooper v Regional Development Consultancy Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601004/2022
- Decision date
- 16 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Cooper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent indicated that it did not defend the claim. Employment Judge Jenkins therefore determined the claim on the papers. The claimant, Mrs C Cooper, brought claims arising from her dismissal against Regional Development Consultancy Ltd.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,265.00. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £950.00 gross.
The tribunal further stated that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract, but found that she had mitigated her loss in full and therefore made no order on that aspect of the claim. The respondent was ordered to pay £9,215.00 in total.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £8,265.00. | Upheld | — | £8,265 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £950.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £950 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal stated that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract, but also found she had mitigated her loss in full, so no order was made on that claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,215
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals 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.