Case 2402503/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Preston Ms S Mullineaux Ms J A Burke v D M Care Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402503/2022
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Preston Ms S Mullineaux Ms J A Burke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent in conjoined claims brought by Ms J Preston, Ms S Mullineaux and Ms J A Burke against D M Care Limited. The written order states that the claims were well founded and required the respondent to make payments by 10 March 2023. The operative award itemises redundancy pay and holiday pay only: Ms Preston was awarded £7,814.13 redundancy pay and £438.60 holiday pay; Ms Mullineaux £2,110.08 redundancy pay and £281.88 holiday pay; and Ms Burke £2,025.10 redundancy pay and £364.72 holiday pay.
The aggregate sums were £8,252.73, £2,391.96 and £2,389.82 gross respectively, totalling £13,034.51. The judgment is brief and by consent, so it does not set out contested findings of fact or a separate breakdown for the unfair dismissal, notice pay or unlawful deduction heads mentioned in the opening recital. A separate notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 records a relevant decision day of 27 March 2023, a calculation day of 28 March 2023 and a stipulated interest rate of 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Aggregate redundancy pay across all three claimants (Julia Preston £7,814.13; Sarah Mullineaux £2,110.08; Julie Burke £2,025.10). Judgment by consent; the claims were recorded as well founded. | Upheld | — | £11,949 |
| Holiday pay | Aggregate holiday pay across all three claimants (Julia Preston £438.60; Sarah Mullineaux £281.88; Julie Burke £364.72). Judgment by consent; the claims were recorded as well founded. | Upheld | — | £1,085 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,035
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 64
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.