Case 2600670/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Bethany Wonfor v Railform Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600670/2022
- Decision date
- 27 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Navdip Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Bethany Wonfor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Nottingham on 25 October 2022 before Employment Judge Navdip Wilson sitting alone. The respondent did not present a valid response on time and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal therefore proceeded to determine the claim under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the claimant, Bethany Wonfor, had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,360. It also recorded that she had been made redundant on 29 October 2021.
The claimant's claim for arrears of pay was dismissed because the tribunal found that her notification to ACAS on 15 February 2022 was outside the limitation period. Future hearings were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,360. | Upheld | — | £1,360 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said the claimant's claim for arrears of pay was out of time because she contacted ACAS on 15 February 2022 after being made redundant on 29 October 2021, outside the limitation period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,360
- across all upheld claims
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.