Case 2308957/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Boateng v Court Green Education CIC — 2026
- Case reference
- 2308957/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Boateng
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3300. The respondent's director attended the hearing and did not challenge the claimant's pay information or length of service, and confirmed that her employment was terminated because the business was in financial difficulties without notice or redundancy pay.
The tribunal also found the breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay to be well-founded. It awarded £2400 as damages, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3300. | Upheld | — | £3,300 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint related to notice pay and the tribunal awarded £2400 as damages. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,700
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 163 Employment Rights Act 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.