Case 2304768/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mollie Telford v The Foster Partnership Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304768/2019
- Decision date
- 22 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mollie Telford
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.
The tribunal also found that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, that the Respondent failed to comply with collective redundancy procedures, that unauthorised deductions had been made from wages, and that unpaid holiday had accrued at the effective date of termination. The total award ordered was £13,130.40.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment states the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and separately awards £840 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £840 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,260 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,680 |
| Other | Protective award for failure to comply with collective redundancy procedures; no more specific locked claim type is available. | Upheld | — | £7,560 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,572 |
| Holiday pay | Award for unpaid holiday accrued at the effective date of termination. | Upheld | — | £218 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,130
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £840
- 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.