Case 2200504/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v TWH Romsey Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200504/2020
- Decision date
- 6 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent, TWH Romsey Ltd, did not file an ET3. Employment Judge Adkin therefore determined Mrs S French's claim on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, without the listed hearing taking place. The judgment recorded that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages and ordered it to pay £5,258.63.
The reasons break that sum into two parts. First, the claimant was treated as entitled under section 86(1)(b) ERA 1996 to five weeks' notice pay, calculated from monthly pay of £1,823 at £2,103.46. Second, the tribunal treated the facts described by the claimant as a redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996 and awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £3,155.17, based on gross weekly pay of £420.69 and 1.5 weeks' pay for each full year worked when aged 41 or over.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay element of the award; the reasons state that under section 86(1)(b) ERA 1996 the claimant was entitled to five weeks' notice pay, calculated from monthly pay of £1,823. | Upheld | — | £2,103 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment element of the award; the reasons state that the situation described by the claimant was a redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996 and that the payment was calculated from gross weekly pay of £420.69. | Upheld | — | £3,155 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,259
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- s.86(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 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.