Case 2500338/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Muse v Cook and Turnbull Contractors Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500338/2023
- Decision date
- 14 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Muse
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss L Muse was employed by Cook and Turnbull Contractors Ltd from 4 October 2019 until 5 December 2022, when she was dismissed without notice by reason of redundancy. She presented a claim on 22 February 2023 seeking a redundancy payment, and the Respondent did not return a response by the 29 March 2023 deadline.
The Tribunal proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and recorded that it had sufficient material to determine the claim. It accepted that, at the date of dismissal, the Claimant had been continuously employed for 3 complete years and was 26 years old, with gross weekly pay of £528.
On that basis, the Tribunal found the statutory redundancy payment claim under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £1,584. The hearing listed for 19 April 2023 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Tribunal found the complaint for a statutory redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. The Claimant had 3 complete years' continuous employment, was aged 26 at dismissal, and had a gross weekly pay of £528, producing a redundancy payment of £1,584. | Upheld | — | £1,584 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,584
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 163 Employment Rights Act 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.