Case 2303848/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Tadman v ABCDE1 Limited (formerly Woodfield Systems Ltd) (in Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303848/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Tadman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the London South Employment Tribunal on 28 April 2024. The respondent, ABCDE1 Limited (formerly Woodfield Systems Ltd, in administration), failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that a determination could properly be made of the claim or part of it.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice between 01-03-2024 and 23-05-2024, and ordered damages of £2,899.80 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,659.94 gross.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £6,559.74 in total. The judgment records that the claimant must account to HMRC for any sums owed by her in respect of any payment received pursuant to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice between 01-03-2024 and 23-05-2024. | Upheld | — | £2,900 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £3,660 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,560
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.