Case 2300850/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B A Duffy v Springfield Catering Management Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300850/2023
- Decision date
- 6 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D. Wright
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B A Duffy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge D. Wright, sitting alone at London South via CVP, refused the respondent's application to adjourn the hearing. The respondent did not attend. The claimant was represented in person.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had not paid redundancy pay of £4,345 and ordered that sum to be paid forthwith. It also found that the respondent had unlawfully deducted wages by failing to pay notice pay of £4,345, and ordered that amount to be paid forthwith.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had deducted pension contributions from the claimant but had not paid them into her pension scheme. It ordered payment of £1,270 to account for those deductions and lost investment income. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £4,345 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Notice pay of £4,345.00 was found to have been unlawfully deducted from wages. | Upheld | — | £4,345 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found pension contributions had been deducted from the claimant but not paid into her pension scheme; £1,270 was ordered to account for those payments and lost investment income. | Upheld | — | £1,270 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,960
- 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.