Case 2407102/2023 · Employment Tribunal
S Attwood v The Lupin Foundation — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407102/2023
- Decision date
- 1 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Attwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 after the respondent indicated that it did not contest the claim. Employment Judge Batten accordingly adjudged the matter on the papers. The tribunal found that the claimant, S Attwood, was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £9,500.00.
The tribunal also found that the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice. On that basis, it ordered the respondent to pay damages of £3,801.60. In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,748.00.
A notice attached to the judgment explained that interest is payable under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the relevant decision day stated as 1 November 2023, the calculation day as 2 November 2023, and the stipulated rate as 8% per annum. The extracted judgment does not record any separate interest amount awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 £9,500.00. | Upheld | — | £9,500 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £3,801.60. | Upheld | — | £3,802 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,748.00. | Upheld | — | £1,748 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,050
- 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.