Case 2407201/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Williams-Miller v Intrum UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407201/2024
- Decision date
- 12 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Williams-Miller
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Barker entered judgment under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal awarded damages for breach of contract in respect of notice in the sum of £5,532 (12 weeks at £461 net weekly wage). The claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a basic award/statutory redundancy payment of £9,321 (gross weekly wage £582, age factor 1, 16 years' service); she made no claim for a compensatory award. The claimant was also entitled to outstanding contractual redundancy pay of £18,624 (2 x £582 x 16). Total payable £33,468.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Breach of contract for notice: 12 weeks at net weekly wage £461. Rule 22 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £5,532 |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy: statutory redundancy payment / basic award only (gross weekly wage £582, age factor 1, 16 years' service). Claimant made no claim for compensatory award. Rule 22 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £9,321 |
| Redundancy | Contractual redundancy pay outstanding at termination: 2 x £582 x 16 years' service. Rule 22 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £18,624 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £33,468
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,321
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.