Case 2305506/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Adams v Mr Raj Jugdharree Sirs Care Home — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305506/2019
- Decision date
- 29 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 because the respondent had not presented a response and had conceded liability. It found that Mrs M Adams had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,246.24 for that breach.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. On that basis it ordered the respondent to pay a redundancy payment of £6,127.20. The judgment records no discrimination, whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, or other separate heads of claim, and no additional remedy beyond the two sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because the respondent presented no response but conceded liability. It found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £2,246.24. | Upheld | — | £2,246 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and ordered the respondent to pay a redundancy payment of £6,127.20. | Upheld | — | £6,127 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,373
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,246
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.