Case 2301813/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R P S Jayadevappa v Old Town Playgroup — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301813/2023
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rahman REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R P S Jayadevappa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South by CVP on 19 December 2023 and 9 January 2024 before Employment Judge Rahman. The claimant, Mrs R P S Jayadevappa, appeared in person and the respondent, Old Town Playgroup, was represented by Mr Chaudhari, Ms Mukherjee, Ms Jandu and Mr Gilding.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay. It also dismissed the complaint in respect of holiday pay. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
On the redundancy issue, the tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £442.50. No separate breakdown of remedy was given beyond that redundancy payment figure.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to notice pay was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint in respect of holiday pay was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £442.50. | Upheld | — | £443 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £443
- 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.