Case 2207928/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Toni Kendall v Charlotte Higgo — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207928/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bunting Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Toni Kendall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central via CVP on 31 January 2023 before Employment Judge Bunting. The claimant, Toni Kendall, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 1 September 2022.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. It calculated the award at 4 years x 1.5 x a week's gross pay of £571, noting that the claimant's gross weekly pay was £608.15 but was capped at £577 by the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2022. The resulting redundancy payment was £3,426.00.
The tribunal also granted a declaration that the respondent had failed to provide written itemised pay statements contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate monetary award was recorded for that declaration.
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 on 1 September 2022 and awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £3,426.00, calculated using 4 years x 1.5 x a week's gross pay of £571, with gross weekly pay of £608.15 capped at £577 under the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2022. | Upheld | — | £3,426 |
| Other | The tribunal granted a declaration that the respondent failed to provide written itemised pay statements contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,426
- 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.