Case 1802291/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Morley v Lancasters Property Services Limited HELD In Leeds by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802291/2022
- Decision date
- 4 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Morley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that redundancy was agreed and that the only live issue on the redundancy payment claim was whether the respondent had made a suitable offer of alternative employment and whether the claimant unreasonably refused it. The respondent had told the claimant on 12 May 2022 that the Stocksbridge office would no longer be available and invited her to consultation. In consultation, the respondent offered a role based at the Penistone office, with manager status and a small salary increase, and also offered a statutory trial period, which the claimant declined.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal applied section 141 Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the respondent made a suitable offer of alternative employment and that the claimant unreasonably refused it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant had made a claim for notice pay, but the tribunal recorded that it had now been paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant had made a claim for holiday pay, but the tribunal recorded that it had now been paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 141 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.