Case 2206548/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Chuliver v John Wraith t/a The Masons Arms — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206548/2020
- Decision date
- 10 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Chuliver
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss Chuliver was dismissed by reason of redundancy. On that basis, her claim for a redundancy payment succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay £3,102. The judgment does not set out a detailed factual narrative, but the operative finding was that the dismissal fell within redundancy and triggered the statutory payment.
The tribunal also held that the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and stated that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant. It recorded that she was awarded no compensation because her basic award was reduced by reason of the redundancy payment already awarded by the tribunal, pursuant to section 122(4)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant's application for costs was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and ordered the respondent to pay £3,102 in respect of a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £3,102 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded. It recorded that the claimant was awarded no compensation because her basic award was reduced by reason of the redundancy payment, pursuant to section 122(4)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,102
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.122(4)(a) 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.