Case 2411229/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Miss S Bailey v Axiom Ince Limited (In Administration) — 2024

Case reference: 2411229/2023
Decision date: 25 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss S Bailey

Respondent

Axiom Ince Limited (In Administration)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 in chambers, with neither party in attendance. It found the claimant's redundancy payment claim well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £4,826.70, noting that the claimant had 13 complete years of service.

The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found that the claimant was based at Manchester in an establishment where fewer than 20 staff were made redundant, so the claimant was not entitled to a protective award.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	The Tribunal found the claim for a redundancy payment was well-founded and ordered payment of £4,826.70.	Upheld	—	£4,827
Trade union	The complaint under section 189 TULRCA 1992 for failure to comply with section 188 was found not well-founded; the claimant was based at Manchester in an establishment where fewer than 20 staff were made redundant, so no protective award was made.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £4,827; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.