Case 2400422/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Proctor Miss A Harrison v Jackie Roper t/a Little Clovers Day Nursery — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400422/2025
- Decision date
- 20 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Proctor Miss A Harrison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined the claims on the papers under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. Both claimants were found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy and were entitled to statutory redundancy payments calculated using the £700 weekly pay cap.
Mrs J Proctor was awarded £13,650, calculated as 1.5 weeks' pay for every complete year of service when she was aged 41 or older (1.5 x 13 x £700). Miss A Harrison was awarded £16,800, comprising £2,100 for service between ages 22 and 41 (1 x 3 x £700) and £14,700 for service when aged 41 or older (1.5 x 14 x £700).
No determination or award was made in the claimants' breach of contract claims, as the claimants confirmed that payment of damages had been agreed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Mrs J Proctor: redundancy payment of £13,650 (1.5 x 13 x £700, statutory cap applied). | Upheld | — | £13,650 |
| Redundancy | Miss A Harrison: redundancy payment of £16,800 (1 x 3 x £700 = £2,100 plus 1.5 x 14 x £700 = £14,700, statutory cap applied). | Upheld | — | £16,800 |
| Breach of contract | No determination or award made; the claimants confirmed that payment of damages had been agreed between the parties. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,450
- 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.