Case 2411451/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Bytheway v Axiom Ince Limited (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411451/2023
- Decision date
- 24 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Bytheway
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made in Chambers under Rule 21. The tribunal found the claimant's claim for a redundancy payment well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £3,858.00. The calculation recorded that the claimant was under 41 at termination, had six years' service, and that the statutory cap of £643 applied.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 about an alleged failure to comply with section 188. It found the claimant was based at Manchester in an establishment where fewer than 20 staff were made redundant, so she 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 redundancy payment claim well-founded and awarded £3,858.00, based on the claimant being under 41 at termination, having six years' service, and the statutory cap of £643 applying. | Upheld | — | £3,858 |
| Trade union | The complaint under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 concerning alleged failure to comply with section 188 was found not well-founded; the tribunal stated the claimant was based at Manchester in an establishment where fewer than 20 staff were made redundant and was not entitled to a protective award. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,858
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.