Case 3200832/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Zoe Bannister v SJR Easilocks Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200832/2021
- Decision date
- 26 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Townley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Zoe Bannister
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Zoe Bannister’s claim for pay in lieu of notice succeeded. The tribunal ordered SJR Easilocks Limited to pay £2,166.67, described as one month’s gross pay calculated on the basis of a salary of £26,000 per annum. The judgment recorded that the figure was expressed gross, and noted that income tax and National Insurance contributions may be payable on that award.
The claim for statutory redundancy pay also succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant had more than two years’ continuous employment and was entitled to redundancy pay calculated as 2 x 0.5 week’s salary given her age. The amount awarded for that claim was £500.00.
The respondent did not appear and was not represented at the hearing, which took place by telephone on 26 September 2022 before Employment Judge Townley. No other claims or remedies were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for pay in lieu of notice succeeded. The tribunal awarded one month’s gross pay, calculated by reference to a salary of £26,000 per annum. The award was expressed as a gross figure, and the tribunal noted that income tax and National Insurance may be payable on this sum. | Upheld | — | £2,167 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant had more than two years’ continuous employment and was entitled to 2 x 0.5 week’s salary given her age. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,667
- 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.