Case 2500136/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Johnson v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Redundancy Payment Service — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500136/2022
- Decision date
- 6 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Garnon. He
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment dated 6 April 2022, Employment Judge Sweeney dealt with Miss L Johnson's reference under section 170 ERA 1996 about a statutory redundancy payment. A prior judgment dated 23 November 2020 had already found The Leven, Hotel Restaurant & Spa Ltd liable to pay her £2,943 redundancy pay, together with £1,962 for notice pay and £610 for accrued holiday pay. The present reference arose because the Secretary of State rejected her application under section 166 on the basis that he did not accept she had two years' continuous employment at the date her employment ended.
The tribunal held that the employer's liability for the redundancy payment could not be revisited, because Judge Garnon's earlier judgment had expressly addressed continuity of employment and found that the claimant had nine complete years of employment, including consideration of regulation 4 of the TUPE Regulations. Judge Sweeney found that Miss Johnson had taken all reasonable steps to recover the payment, that LHRS had failed to pay it, and that the amount payable by the Secretary of State under section 168 was £2,943. The judgment also noted that LHRS had been wound up and dissolved, and the hearing listed for 20 April 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Reference under section 170 ERA 1996. The tribunal relied on the earlier 23 November 2020 judgment, which had already found LHRS liable for a statutory redundancy payment of £2,943. | Upheld | — | £2,943 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,943
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 21 ET Rules of Procedure
- section 170 ERA 1996
- section 166 ERA 1996
- section 167(2) ERA 1996
- section 168 ERA 1996
- regulation 4 of the TUPE Regulations
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.