Ms L Mudie v Mr N Faulkner — 2026

Case reference: 2309164/2025
Decision date: 10 March 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
Venue: London South

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms L Mudie

Respondent

Mr N Faulkner

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant brought complaints of underpayment of statutory redundancy pay, wrongful dismissal (underpayment of notice pay), failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars, and breach of automatic enrolment obligations under the Pensions Act 2008 against Mr N Faulkner. The case was heard at London South on 10 March 2026 before Employment Judge Ramsden sitting alone.

The respondent's application for reconsideration of the rejection of his out-of-time response was unsuccessful. Each of the underpayment complaints succeeded and the Tribunal ordered payment of £6,775.50 (statutory redundancy underpayment), £1,238.23 (notice pay underpayment) and £1,303.40 (compensation for failure to provide written particulars). The complaint regarding automatic enrolment under the Pensions Act 2008 was held to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The claimant must account to HMRC for income tax and National Insurance contributions.

Claims and outcomes

4 claims adjudicated

Claim type	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	Upheld	—	£6,776
Wrongful dismissal	Upheld	—	£1,238
Other	Upheld	—	£1,303
Other	Other	—	—

Source tags (gov.uk)

Breach of Contract
Redundancy and Written Pay Statement

Legal tests applied

1 reference

section 38 Employment Act 2002

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £9,317

Source document

Primary record

The full judgment is available on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Download judgment (PDF)

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.