Case 2408335/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Stalker v Norens Limited t/a Homecrest — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408335/2022
- Decision date
- 22 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Stalker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers.
The tribunal found that Miss H Stalker was dismissed by reason of redundancy and therefore entitled to a redundancy payment. The judgment records the award as £778.10 and states that this was calculated by reference to one week's pay for each full year worked when the claimant was aged between 22 and 41, with the calculation shown as 1 x 2 x £389.05 = 777.98.
The holiday pay claim was dismissed. The tribunal said the claimant was unable to calculate what sum, if any, was due, and no holiday pay award was made.
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 £778.10. The reasons section states this was calculated by reference to one week's pay for each full year worked when the claimant was aged between 22 and 41; the parenthetical calculation reads 1 x 2 x £389.05 = 777.98. | Upheld | — | £778 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal dismissed the holiday pay claim because the claimant was unable to calculate what sum, if any, was due. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £778
- 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.