Case 2411752/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Sutton v Intuitive Early Years Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411752/2023
- Decision date
- 24 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Sutton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined the case under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a response to the claim. Mrs A Sutton had worked as deputy manager for the respondent pre-school nursery from 23 July 2017 to 24 August 2023. She said that the respondent notified her of the closure of its business while she was on maternity leave and that she did not receive redundancy pay or notice pay when her employment ended.
The tribunal held that the redundancy pay claim was well founded. It found that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment under section 135 ERA 1996. On the facts found, her gross weekly wage was £352, she had worked six complete years, and she was 32 years old on termination, so the section 162 calculation produced a redundancy payment of £2,112.
The tribunal also held that the claim for statutory notice pay was well founded under section 86 ERA 1996. It found that the claimant was entitled to six weeks' notice pay, and at £352 per week the award came to £2,112 gross. The judgment therefore ordered a total of £4,224, comprising £2,112 redundancy pay and £2,112 notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claim for redundancy pay well founded under section 135 ERA 1996 and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a gross redundancy payment of £2,112. | Upheld | — | £2,112 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for failure to pay statutory notice pay well founded under section 86 ERA 1996 and ordered the respondent to pay gross notice pay of £2,112. | Upheld | — | £2,112 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,224
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.162 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
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.