Case 2404674/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Marland v Park Hall Hotel Limited in Voluntary Liquidation — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404674/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Marland
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, it found that Miss A Marland had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,317.90.
The separate holiday pay complaint was struck out. The tribunal recorded that the claim had not been actively pursued because the claimant did not respond to letters asking for details of the amounts claimed.
The written notice on interest stated that, if the award remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, interest would accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. It identified 20 March 2023 as the relevant decision day, 21 March 2023 as the calculation day, and 8% per annum as the stipulated rate.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,317.90. The decision was made under rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £4,318 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not respond to letters asking for details of the amounts claimed. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,318
- 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.