Case 1801096/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Allen v Aarondale Healthcare Limited (In voluntary liquidation) Heard: Remotely by video — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801096/2022
- Decision date
- 27 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Allen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S A Shore heard the matter remotely on 27 May 2022 and recorded a Rule 21 judgment for Ms G Allen against Aarondale Healthcare Limited (in voluntary liquidation). The Tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well founded, but because the claimant said she did not want an order under section 113 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, no order was made under that provision.
The Tribunal dismissed the claims for unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and for failure to consult about redundancy under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that the claimant had been dismissed for redundancy and that her separate redundancy payment claim was well founded. On the figures recorded, she was 53 years old at the effective date of termination, had 3 complete years of service, and earned £500.50 gross per week, producing a statutory redundancy payment of £2,252.25.
The Tribunal also upheld the claim for accrued holiday pay. It found that 45.5 hours of leave remained outstanding at dismissal and awarded £541.45 gross at £11.90 per hour. The breach of contract claim for notice pay also succeeded, with the Tribunal finding that the claimant was contractually entitled to three weeks' notice and awarding £1,501.50 gross. The monetary awards recorded in the judgment therefore total £4,295.20.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was held to be well founded. The claimant did not want the Tribunal to make an order under section 113 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so no such order was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim of unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim that the respondent failed to consult with the claimant about redundancy contrary to section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant was dismissed for redundancy. The Tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment calculated as 3 complete years of service x 1.5 x £500.50, based on weekly gross pay of £500.50 and age 53 at the effective date of termination. | Upheld | — | £2,252 |
| Holiday pay | The claim for accrued holiday pay succeeded. The Tribunal found 45.5 hours' leave outstanding at the effective date of dismissal and awarded £11.90 x 45.5 = £541.45 gross, subject to deduction of income tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £541 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim for failure to pay notice pay succeeded. The Tribunal found the claimant was contractually entitled to three weeks' notice and awarded 3 weeks x £500.50 = £1,501.50 gross, subject to deduction of income tax and National Insurance. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,295
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
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.