Case 2502228/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Luthgarda Langley v HC Facility Management Limited t/a Hotelcare (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2502228/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Luthgarda Langley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote hearing on 9 March 2022 before Employment Judge Sweeney, the respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that the claimant’s claim for a statutory redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded, and that the claim for unfair dismissal was also well founded and succeeded.
The written record states the amounts awarded on each head. The statutory redundancy payment was assessed at £627.84, using the hourly rate and years of continuous employment set out in the judgment. The unfair dismissal compensatory award was £4,542. The total amount payable to the claimant was £5,169.84. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal calculated the sum as 16 hours x £8.72 = £139.52, then £139.52 x 1.5 = £209.28, then £209.28 x 3 years = £627.84. | Upheld | — | £628 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim well founded and ordered a compensatory award of £4,542. | Upheld | — | £4,542 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,170
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £4,542
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.