Case 2500377/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Pauline Martin v HM Lazenby Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500377/2023
- Decision date
- 15 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Pauline Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Newcastle by CVP on 15 December 2023 before Employment Judge Loy sitting alone. The claimant, Ms Pauline Martin, appeared in person and the respondent had no appearance or representation.
The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. It ordered HM Lazenby Limited to pay £2,992.50 and recorded the calculation as 10.5 weeks, based on 7 years' complete service at a gross weekly wage of £285.00.
The judgment also records that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and ordered the respondent to pay £2,992.50. The judgment records the calculation as 10.5 weeks for 7 years' complete service at a gross weekly wage of £285.00. | Upheld | — | £2,993 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,993
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.