Case 1801232/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Worrall and Miss L Wood v Airkings Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801232/2020
- Decision date
- 23 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case concerned two linked claims, 1801232/2020 and 1801233/2020, brought by Miss V Worrall and Miss L Wood against Airkings Limited. The hearing was by telephone conference call before Employment Judge Lancaster on 23 April 2020. Miss Worrall appeared in person and was authorised to speak for Miss Wood, who could not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr G Bath.
By consent, and on the basis that there was no defence in law to the claims, the tribunal recorded that each claimant succeeded on claims for a redundancy payment, breach of contract in respect of pay in lieu of notice, and unauthorised deductions from wages. The judgment does not set out any disputed findings of fact or reasons beyond the parties' agreement that the claims should succeed.
Remedy was not determined in the judgment. The tribunal adjourned remedy to be agreed between the parties or assessed on a later date to be fixed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claims by each Claimant for a redundancy payment succeeded, by consent, on the basis that there was no defence in law to the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claims by each Claimant for breach of contract (pay in lieu of notice) succeeded, by consent, on the basis that there was no defence in law to the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claims by each Claimant for unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded, by consent, on the basis that there was no defence in law to the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.