Case 2411083/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Alison Shackleton v C & A Cerdyn Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2411083/2019
- Decision date
- 24 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Alison Shackleton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent confirmed that the claimant’s claims were not defended, so the tribunal entered judgment in favour of the claimant under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The claim for breach of contract in respect of unpaid notice pay was found well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal awarded £164.20, described as 2 weeks’ gross notice pay at £82.10 per week.
The claim for a statutory redundancy payment was also found well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal awarded £246.30 as a redundancy payment, applying the statutory formula on the basis of 2 years’ continuous service as at the date of dismissal, all service over the age of 41, and gross weekly pay of £82.10. The written notice also states that sums unpaid after 14 days would carry interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 at the stipulated rate of 8% from 25 January 2020, but no separate interest amount was calculated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Unpaid notice pay. The tribunal awarded 2 weeks' gross notice pay at £82.10 per week. | Upheld | — | £164 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment calculated using 2 years' continuous service as at dismissal, all service over age 41, and gross weekly pay of £82.10. | Upheld | — | £246 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £411
- 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.