Case 2413850/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Pilkington v Marie’s Takeaway Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2413850/2019
- Decision date
- 30 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Pilkington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response, so the tribunal dealt with the matter under Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21, on the information before it. The judgment was issued by Regional Employment Judge Parkin Date on 23 December 2019 and sent to the parties on 30 December 2019. The hearing listed for 17 January 2019 was cancelled for this claimant.
The tribunal found that Mrs J Pilkington had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,600. The figure was stated to reflect more than 20 years' continuous employment, with the claimant aged over 41 and weekly pay of £120.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £240 gross. The judgment does not split any further remedy beyond those two sums. A standard interest notice followed, stating that sums payable under the judgment would carry interest if unpaid within 14 days, with 30 December 2019 identified as the relevant decision day and 8% as the stipulated rate.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,600, calculated by reference to more than 20 years' continuous employment, age over 41, and a weekly pay of £120. | Upheld | — | £3,600 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £240 gross. | Upheld | — | £240 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,840
- 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.