Case 2304100/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Pierce v Nudo Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304100/2023
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Pierce
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the parts of the response relating to statutory redundancy payment, payment in lieu of two months' notice, and payment for accrued but untaken annual leave were struck out.
The reason given was that the respondent had been ordered to pay a deposit of GBP 250 in respect of each allegation after a preliminary hearing on 18 July 2024, with the order sent on 29 July 2024. The respondent failed to pay the deposit, so those parts of the response were struck out under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the part of the response relating to statutory redundancy payment was struck out after the respondent failed to pay the ordered deposit; it does not award a remedy. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the part of the response relating to payment in lieu of two months' notice was struck out after the respondent failed to pay the ordered deposit; it does not award a remedy. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the part of the response relating to payment for accrued but untaken annual leave was struck out after the respondent failed to pay the ordered deposit; it does not award a remedy. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.