Case 2402823/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Schofield v Medincharm Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402823/2023
- Decision date
- 12 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Schofield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so Employment Judge Leach determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 25 April 2023 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Mrs S Schofield was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The award was calculated as 1.5 week's pay for every complete year of service aged 41 or older, using 15 complete years at a weekly wage of £379.61, producing a redundancy payment of £8,541.22.
The judgment included a standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest may be payable if the sum is not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, but it did not assess any separate interest figure in the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the tribunal made a Rule 21 determination. The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment calculated as 15 x 1.5 x £379.61 weekly wage. | Upheld | — | £8,541 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,541
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.