Case 2403756/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Parker v Tiggywinkle Laundry Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403756/2024
- Decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Parker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge made a determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal determined the claim without a contested response from the respondent.
The tribunal found that Mrs R Parker had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages of £1,601.60 for that breach.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday entitlement, and ordered payment of £370.00 gross. In addition, it found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,980.00, calculated by reference to 1.5 weeks' pay for each complete year of service while aged between 22 and 41, using a weekly pay figure of £440.00 and three years of service. The total sum payable was £3,951.60.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,601.60. | Upheld | — | £1,602 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued but untaken holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £370.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £370 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,980.00. | Upheld | — | £1,980 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,952
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.