Case 2203409/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Marina Ungiadze v Number 63 (Soroptimist) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203409/2021
- Decision date
- 7 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Marina Ungiadze
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend or represent herself at the final hearing on 7 July 2022, and no postponement application had been made. The Tribunal therefore proceeded in her absence under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 after making enquiries about the reasons for her absence and considering the information available to it.
The only claim recorded in the judgment was for a statutory redundancy payment. The Tribunal found that the respondent had already paid a statutory redundancy payment that complied with section 162 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, including the rules on continuous employment and the appropriate week's pay used in the calculation.
On that basis, the Tribunal held that the claimant's redundancy payment claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. The judgment also noted that the respondent had indicated the possibility of an application for costs, and that any such application would need to comply with rule 77.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Tribunal found that the respondent had paid a statutory redundancy payment complying with section 162 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, including the calculation of continuous employment and a week's pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 162 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part XIV Chapter I and Chapter II Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 77 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.