Case 2303178/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Bailey v Optimistic Fox Ltd (in Liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303178/2022
- Decision date
- 28 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms R Bailey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Bailey was an employee of Optimistic Fox Ltd, the First Respondent. The First Respondent did not attend the hearing, and the Secretary of State was represented.
The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to sums for statutory redundancy pay, holiday pay, notice pay and arrears pay. The calculations used a monthly salary of £1,757.00 and a weekly salary of £405.46, with the sums stated to be subject to an uplift to the National Minimum Wage amount and based on a 48-hour working week.
The individual awards were £3,243.68 for statutory redundancy pay, £1,621.84 for holiday pay, £2,838.22 for notice pay and £1,621.84 for arrears pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was an employee of the First Respondent and entitled to statutory redundancy pay calculated on 7 years' employment and an 8-week entitlement period. | Upheld | — | £3,244 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded holiday pay for 20 days untaken, calculated as 4 weeks at the stated weekly salary. | Upheld | — | £1,622 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as notice pay, calculated by reference to a 7-week statutory redundancy notice period. | Upheld | — | £2,838 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as arrears pay, with 4 months and 20 days unpaid and a claimable period of 4 weeks. | Upheld | — | £1,622 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,326
- 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.