Case 2305207/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Laura Dyson v v Downunder Cafe Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305207/2020
- Decision date
- 28 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Laura Dyson v
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting before Employment Judge T Lawrence on 28 January 2022, heard the claim against Downunder Cafe Ltd and recorded that the respondent did not appear. It found that Ms Dyson was dismissed without notice on 30 June 2020. Her claims for statutory redundancy pay, notice pay and holiday pay succeeded, while her unfair dismissal claim did not succeed.
The judgment states that she was entitled to 13 weeks' statutory redundancy pay, 12 weeks' notice pay and one week of untaken holiday. It records her gross weekly pay as £480.77, equivalent to £25,000 per annum, plus an employer pension contribution of 3% (£14.42 per week).
The tribunal applied a 25% increase to the compensation due because of the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the applicable codes of practice relating to the resolution of disputes. It ordered the respondent to pay a gross sum of £16,093.68 in total. The extracted text does not apportion that figure between the successful heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The supplied text states only that the unfair dismissal claim did not succeed; it does not set out the tribunal's reasoning. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,094
- across all upheld claims
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.