Case 2400126/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Walker v Town & City Leisure Limited and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400126/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs M Walker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 in the absence of any response form defending the claims. Town & City Leisure Limited was removed from the proceedings after the claimant asserted that it was not her employer, and the title of the second respondent was amended to Jordan Hart t/a Harts Amusements.
Against Jordan Hart, the tribunal entered judgment on the undefended claims. It found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,655.50, of which £3,100.00 had already been paid, leaving £3,555.50 payable. It also found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,132.00, being 12 weeks' notice at £261 per week gross, described as a net sum because it was likely to be subject to tax as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The tribunal further found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay and ordered £835.20, representing 16 days at £52.20 per day. It found a breach of the obligation to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment and awarded a further four weeks' pay of £1,044.00.
The unfair dismissal complaint was held well founded, but no award was made because the basic award was extinguished by the statutory redundancy payment and no compensatory award was made, the tribunal finding that the closure of Harts Amusements on 13 November 2019 meant employment would have ended in any event. A separate complaint of unauthorised deductions in relation to pension contributions was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Somerset County Council v Chambers EAT/0417/12. The total amount payable to the claimant was £8,566.70, and the recoupment regulations were stated not to apply.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. It held the statutory redundancy payment was £6,655.50, of which £3,100.00 had already been paid, leaving £3,555.50 payable. | Upheld | — | £3,556 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded £3,132.00, described as 12 weeks' notice at £261 per week gross and as a net sum because it was likely to be taxed as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £3,132 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay and ordered £835.20, representing 16 days at £52.20 per day. | Upheld | — | £835 |
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of the obligation to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment and awarded a further four weeks' pay of £1,044.00. | Upheld | — | £1,044 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal complaint was well founded, but made no award. It said the basic award was extinguished by the statutory redundancy payment and no compensatory award was made because the closure of Harts Amusements on 13 November 2019 meant employment would have ended in any event. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,567
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Somerset County Council v Chambers EAT/0417/12
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.