Case 1801627/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Medforth Mr S Dry Mrs L Wilson v Harts Bathrooms and Kitchens (Thorn) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801627/2022
- Decision date
- 1 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Medforth Mr S Dry Mrs L Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 20 April 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge made a Rule 21 determination on 1 June 2022.
The tribunal found that Sarah Medforth was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that she was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £2,496.00. It reached the same conclusion for Simon Dry, awarding him £2,606.64.
The tribunal also found that Lisa Wilson was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded her statutory redundancy payment of £1,615.38. Those awards produced a total of £6,718.02.
The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not determined in this decision and would be dealt with at the hearing listed for 21 June 2022 if not earlier withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Sarah Medforth was found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was awarded statutory redundancy payment of £2,496.00 under the Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,496 |
| Redundancy | Simon Dry was found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was awarded statutory redundancy payment of £2,606.64 under the Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,607 |
| Redundancy | Lisa Wilson was found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was awarded statutory redundancy payment of £1,615.38 under the Rule 21 judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,615 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,718
- across all upheld claims
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.