Case 2304765/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Belinda Plummer v The Foster Partnership Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304765/2019
- Decision date
- 22 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Belinda Plummer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent did not present a response within the stipulated time, and judgment was given in default under Rule 21.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. It also found that the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice.
The Tribunal further found that the Respondent failed to comply with collective redundancy procedures, resulting in a protective award of 90 days' pay, and that the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages. The total sum ordered was £12,768.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and separately awards £665 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £665 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the Claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment in this sum. | Upheld | — | £2,993 |
| Breach of contract | Notice damages awarded for dismissal in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,995 |
| Other | Protective award for failure to comply with collective redundancy procedures; classified as other because the taxonomy has no specific protective award or collective consultation category. | Upheld | — | £5,985 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | £1,131 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,768
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £665
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – 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.