Case 2307799/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. L. Caller (solicitor) For the v DA Tailoring LLP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2307799/2020
- Decision date
- 12 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Le Grys
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. L. Caller (solicitor) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that both Claimant 1, Amanda Lynch, and Claimant 2, Jahir Palomino, had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. It held that each was entitled to a redundancy payment and ordered the Respondent, DA Tailoring LLP, to pay the agreed sums of £5,649 to the First Claimant and £3,750 to the Second Claimant.
The Second Claimant also presented a breach of contract claim for notice pay. That claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not record any other substantive findings or any separate award beyond the two redundancy payments.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The First Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was found entitled to a redundancy payment in the agreed sum of £5,649. | Upheld | — | £5,649 |
| Redundancy | The Second Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was found entitled to a redundancy payment in the agreed sum of £3,750. | Upheld | — | £3,750 |
| Breach of contract | The Second Claimant's claim for breach of contract (notice pay) was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,399
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.