Case 3200429/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Fricker v Carisma trading Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200429/2023
- Decision date
- 20 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Fricker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent admitted that Mrs L Fricker was dismissed on 12 January 2023 by reason of redundancy as defined in section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal therefore declared that she was entitled to a redundancy payment under section 135 ERA 1996.
In calculating the payment under section 162 ERA 1996, the tribunal found that her continuous employment ran from 1 July 2000 to 12 January 2023, giving 22 full years of service, but that the statutory maximum of 20 years applied. It also recorded that she was born on 14 February 1959 and was over the age of 41 for the relevant 20-year period from 12 January 2003.
Applying the statutory formula of 1.5 weeks' pay for each qualifying year, and using the agreed weekly pay of £204.25, the tribunal calculated the redundancy payment at £6,127.50. The Respondent was ordered to pay that sum to the Claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Respondent admitted that the Claimant was dismissed for redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996. The tribunal declared entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment and calculated the award under section 162 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £6,128 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,128
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.162 ERA 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.