Case 2501972/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Lucy May Grimston v Carla Abram — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501972/2024
- Decision date
- 15 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Robertson Representation
- Venue
- Middlesbrough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lucy May Grimston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of GBP 1,020 under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that an incorrect figure had been given during oral reasons and that the written figure used the claimant's correct age of 22 when employment ended.
The claimant's breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay and her unlawful deduction from wages complaint were both dismissed. For each, the tribunal found that the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment of GBP 1,020. | Upheld | — | £1,020 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint related to notice pay and was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages complaint was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,020
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.