Case 2410337/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Robertson v Medincharm Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2410337/2022
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy Date
- Venue
- Manchester via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Robertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal allowed Mrs N Robertson's late claim for a redundancy payment under section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996. It then determined, under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,819.40 gross.
The judgment records the tribunal's calculation: 3 x 12 hour shifts produced a weekly wage of £327.96, which was multiplied by 15 years' service to give £4,919.40, and £100 already received was deducted to reach the final figure. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
The written record also stated that the respondent had 14 days from the date of the judgment to apply for reconsideration. The accompanying notice set out the tribunal's standard interest information, but no separate interest award was made in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal allowed the claimant's late submission of her claim for a redundancy payment under section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996 and determined that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,819.40 gross. The judgment records the calculation as weekly pay of £327.96 multiplied by 15 years' service, giving £4,919.40, less £100 already received. | Upheld | — | £4,819 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,819
- 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.