Case 2502180/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs LA Nichols v The Eston California Social Club — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502180/2023
- Decision date
- 1 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs LA Nichols
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs LA Nichols presented a claim for a redundancy payment under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent filed a response stating that it did not defend the claim. The tribunal therefore entered judgment on the basis of the ET1 form, without a hearing, under Rule 21.
The tribunal found that the claimant had 32 years' continuous service and gross weekly wages of £166.72. It also found that she had been aged over 41 throughout the final 20 years of her service, which was the applicable period for calculating the maximum redundancy payment entitlement.
Applying the statutory redundancy formula, the tribunal awarded one and a half weeks' pay for each complete year of service in that applicable period. It calculated the award as 20 years multiplied by £166.72 multiplied by 1.5, producing a redundancy payment of £5,001.60.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim determined on the papers under Rule 21. The tribunal accepted the ET1-based calculation: 32 years' continuous service, gross weekly pay of £166.72, and over-41 status for the final 20 years, giving 20 years at 1.5 weeks' pay per complete year. | Upheld | — | £5,002 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,002
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.