Case 2304225/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Woodman v Gillingham Football Club and 3 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304225/2018
- Decision date
- 14 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mrs K Woodman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ferguson gave a Rule 21 judgment on 14 June 2019 in Mrs K Woodman v Gillingham Football Club and others. The judgment states that the claim succeeds and that the remedy to which Mrs K Woodman is entitled will be determined at a later Remedy Hearing.
The written record is the universal Rule 21 template and contains no reasons, no claim-by-claim findings, and no quantified award. It records only the default success of the claim and defers remedy to the later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The case-level jurisdiction code includes breach of contract. The Rule 21 template judgment does not give separate findings or a quantified remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Protective Award is listed in the case-level jurisdiction code. The written judgment does not separately quantify any award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The case-level jurisdiction code includes redundancy. The judgment says only that the claim succeeds and remedy is left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The case-level jurisdiction code includes unfair dismissal. The written judgment does not set out separate reasons. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The case-level jurisdiction code includes unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment does not break out any monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The case-level jurisdiction code includes Working Time Regulations. The Rule 21 template does not provide separate factual findings. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.