Case 2600260/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Zak v Serendib Limited t/a the Birches residential care home — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600260/2019
- Decision date
- 22 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Zak
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Britton found that Mrs G Zak had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The tribunal ordered the respondent, Serendib Limited t/a the Birches residential care home, to pay damages in the sum of £2,215.38, expressed in the judgment as £276.92 x 8 and prefaced by a reference to £1,200 net.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. On that basis it held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,192. The judgment states that section 166 Employment Rights Act 1996 applied for payment from the Insolvency Fund. No other claims, findings, or remedy components are recorded in the extracted judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £2,215.38, calculated as £276.92 x 8 after referring to £1,200 net. | Upheld | — | £2,215 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,192. The judgment noted that section 166 Employment Rights Act 1996 applied for payment from the Insolvency Fund. | Upheld | — | £3,192 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,407
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- s.166 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.