Case 1804219/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Lambert v North Eastern Bakeries — 2026
- Case reference
- 1804219/2025
- Decision date
- 27 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Lambert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs N Lambert presented her claim in the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 17 July 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Miller decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal held that the claim of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. It also found that North Eastern Bakeries had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £1,199.20 gross.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,088.80. Compensation for the unfair dismissal claim was not determined in this judgment and was left to a separate remedy hearing, and the hearing listed for 8 April 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded. Compensation was left to be determined at a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made unauthorised deductions from wages and was ordered to pay the gross amount of £1,199.20. | Upheld | — | £1,199 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,088.80. | Upheld | — | £3,089 |
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.