Case 2406395/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Ferguson v Cumbria Childcare Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406395/2022
- Decision date
- 20 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Ferguson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Phil Allen determined the claim under rule 21 after finding that the respondent, Cumbria Childcare Ltd (formerly known as Furness Childcare Ltd), had failed to present a valid response on time. The written judgment records that the hearing listed for 15 November 2022 was cancelled.
On the merits, the tribunal found that Miss D Ferguson had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,400. It also found that she had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £920.
The judgment included a notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 stating that interest would be payable if the award was not paid within 14 days after the relevant decision day, with the stipulated rate set at 8% per annum. No separate interest sum was quantified in the judgment text.
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 awarded a redundancy payment of £1,400 under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £920. | Upheld | — | £920 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,320
- across all upheld claims
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.