Case 2301245/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Tracy Duck v Burnt Ash Pre-School — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301245/2025
- Decision date
- 12 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moyler REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Tracy Duck
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting at London South by CVP before Employment Judge Moyler on 12 November 2025, considered Ms Tracy Duck's claim for a redundancy payment against Burnt Ash Pre-School. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent was represented by Ms E Bentley and Ms C Grant-Hickey.
Under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,663.23. The respondent had already paid £1,604.37 towards that entitlement, leaving an outstanding sum of £2,058.86 owed to the claimant.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and written reasons will only be provided if requested in accordance with the standard 14-day rule. The PDF record contains the judgment but not the underlying reasoning, so no further factual findings are available from the document.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal determined entitlement to a redundancy payment of £3,663.23 under s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996; respondent had already paid £1,604.37, leaving £2,058.86 owed to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £2,059 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,059
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.163 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.