Case 2310949/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Szabo v The Park Pre-School LTD. t/a Cheeky Little Monkeys Nursery — 2025
- Case reference
- 2310949/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Szabo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the London South Employment Tribunal on 2 December 2024. The respondent indicated that it did not intend to defend the claim, and judgment was therefore entered for the claimant in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment. The calculation used an effective date of termination of 18 July 2024, the claimant's age of 31, 8 complete years of service and a gross weekly pay of £286, producing a total entitlement of £2,288.
The respondent had already made a part payment of £550, so the outstanding sum the respondent must pay the claimant is £1,738 gross. The hearing previously listed on 23 April 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Judgment entered under rule 22 as the respondent indicated it does not intend to defend the claim. Total redundancy entitlement calculated as £2,288 (age 31, 8 complete years of service, gross weekly pay £286); £550 part payment already made, leaving £1,738 gross outstanding. | Upheld | — | £1,738 |
| Redundancy | Judgment entered under rule 22 as the respondent indicated it does not intend to defend the claim. Total redundancy entitlement calculated as £2,288 (age 31, 8 complete years of service, gross weekly pay £286); £550 part payment already made, leaving £1,738 gross outstanding. | Upheld | — | £1,738 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,738
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.