Case 2406782/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Yates Mrs P Wright Miss P Starkie v Susan Moss on behalf of the members of the Management Committee of Our Lady and St Bernard’s Catholic Club — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406782/2022
- Decision date
- 24 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Yates Mrs P Wright Miss P Starkie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the claims under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The listed hearing on 24 November 2022 was cancelled. The judgment records that the tribunal was able to determine the claims on the papers.
Miss Yates, Mrs Wright and Miss Starkie were each found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal awarded Miss Yates a redundancy payment of £1,113.75, calculated by reference to her complete years of service and the statutory age-related multipliers described in the judgment. Mrs Wright was awarded £2,138.40, and Miss Starkie was awarded £15,504, each on the basis set out in the judgment’s redundancy calculations.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found Miss Yates was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,113.75. | Upheld | — | £1,114 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found Mrs Wright was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,138.40. | Upheld | — | £2,138 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found Miss Starkie was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £15,504. | Upheld | — | £15,504 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,756
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, 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.