Case 2501321/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Patterson v Miramar 246 Limited (In voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501321/2023
- Decision date
- 22 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Patterson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss N Patterson was employed by Miramar 246 Limited from 22 July 2020 until 3 May 2023, when she was dismissed without prior warning or notice by reason of redundancy. She presented her claim on 30 May 2023 seeking a redundancy payment, notice pay, accrued holiday pay, arrears of pay and unfair dismissal. The respondent did not file a response, so the tribunal determined the claim on the available material under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found 20 hours' pay was owed as at the date of dismissal. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Working time regulations | The award was for accrued but untaken holiday pay under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £232 |
| Breach of contract | This was damages for failure to give two weeks' notice. | Upheld | — | £300 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on two complete years' service and age 19. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim succeeded, but the tribunal made no compensatory award and said the basic award was negated by the statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £832
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.