Case 2406036/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Z Nicholson v St George’s Out Of School Clubs — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406036/2022
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Z Nicholson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the case under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the claim in the respondent's absence.
The tribunal found that Ms Z Nicholson had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The judgment records the calculation used to reach the award: 1.5 weeks for each complete year of service when the claimant was aged over 40, and 1 week for each complete year of service when she was aged between 22 and 40.
On that basis, the tribunal awarded £1,113.50 in redundancy pay, made up of £589.50 for 3 years at 1.5 weeks' pay and £524.00 for 4 years at 1 week' pay, using a weekly pay figure of £131.00. The listed hearing on 17 October 2022 was cancelled. The separate notice on interest stated the relevant decision day, calculation day and stipulated rate, but no separate interest sum is recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £1,114 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,114
- 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.