Case 2305148/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Hogan v Sandersons Property Management Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305148/2023
- Decision date
- 5 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Hogan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 26 September 2023 and determined by Employment Judge Ramsden at London South on 5 February 2024 under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the Respondent having failed to present a valid response within the time limit in Rule 16. The Claimant was represented by Mr J Ratledge of counsel; the Respondent did not attend. On the available material the Judge found the Claimant's claims of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the employer unreasonably failed to provide a written statement under section 92 of the 1996 Act, to be well-founded.
The Claimant was awarded damages of £12,033.09. This comprised £11,438.93 for unfair dismissal, made up of a basic award of £0 (because statutory redundancy pay had already been paid, pursuant to section 122(4) of the 1996 Act) and a compensatory award of £11,438.93. The compensatory award was calculated by reference to the statutory cap of 52 weeks' pay (£297.08 x 52 = £15,448.16), less a notice payment in lieu of £1,188.32 net and earnings of £1,184.66 net (16-31 October 2023) and £2,136.25 net (27 November 2023 to 11 January 2024), with £500 added for loss of statutory rights.
In addition, the Respondent was ordered to pay £594.16, being two weeks' pay, in respect of the unreasonable failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal under section 92. For the purposes of the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996, the Prescribed Period was set as 17 June 2023 to 5 February 2024 and the Prescribed Element as £5,517.20.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Determined under Rule 21 following the Respondent's failure to present a valid response. Basic award of £0 because statutory redundancy pay had already been paid (s.122(4) ERA 1996); compensatory award of £11,438.93 includes £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £11,439 |
| Other | Claim that the employer unreasonably failed to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal under section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Award of two weeks' pay (2 x £297.08 = £594.16). | Upheld | — | £594 |
| Unfair dismissal | Determined under Rule 21 following the Respondent's failure to present a valid response. Basic award of £0 because statutory redundancy pay had already been paid (s.122(4) ERA 1996); compensatory award of £11,438.93 includes £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £11,439 |
| Other | Claim that the employer unreasonably failed to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal under section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Award of two weeks' pay (2 x £297.08 = £594.16). | Upheld | — | £594 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,033
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,439
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 122(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.