Case 2301273/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T O'Sullivan v Action with Communities in Rural Kent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301273/2023
- Decision date
- 13 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T O'Sullivan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 22 March 2023. The respondent told the tribunal by email dated 10 June 2023 that it did not intend to defend the claimant’s claim in relation to failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment, and the Employment Judge decided the matter could properly be determined under rule 21 without a hearing on that issue.
The tribunal found that Ms T O'Sullivan had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £13,418.50. The judgment records that the respondent must pay that sum in total.
The hearing listed for 29 September 2023 was cancelled. The remainder of the claim was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013; the extracted text does not identify those remaining heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The respondent emailed on 10 June 2023 that it did not intend to defend the claim in relation to failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal determined under rule 21 that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £13,418.50. | Upheld | — | £13,419 |
| Other | The judgment states that the remainder of the claim was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52. The extracted text does not identify those withdrawn heads of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,419
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21
- Rule 52
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.