Case 1802980/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Peniket v Bright FM Services Limited AT A HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802980/2022
- Decision date
- 20 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Peniket
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss D Peniket, gave unchallenged evidence at a hearing in Leeds by CVP on 20 October 2022 because the respondent did not attend. On that evidence, Employment Judge Lancaster found that the claimant was dismissed on 7 February 2022 by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a redundancy payment of £2,639.10. The judgment records that this was calculated on the basis of 4 years' continuous employment and 6 weeks' pay at £439.85, with a monthly salary of £1,906 used in the calculation.
In addition, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £300.00 as the appropriate amount to compensate the claimant for financial loss attributable to the non-payment of the redundancy payment. No other claim types, legal tests, or lay panel members are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed on 7 February 2022 by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The redundancy payment was calculated at £2,639.10 on the basis of 4 years' continuous employment and 6 weeks' pay at £439.85, using a monthly salary of £1,906. The tribunal also ordered a further £300 for financial loss caused by non-payment of the redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,639 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,939
- 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.