Case 3201445/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Amanda Thompson v Belmont Childcare Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3201445/2022
- Decision date
- 7 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Travers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Amanda Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote telephone hearing on 5 September 2022 before Employment Judge Travers, the respondent's director, Ms England, attended and confirmed she had the claimant's schedule of loss. Ms England accepted that the respondent was liable to the claimant in the terms set out in the judgment.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total award of £2,540.38. The award comprised a redundancy payment of £1,521.10, calculated using six years' service, an age multiplier of 1.5 and gross weekly pay of £169.01; a declaration that the claimant's wages for February 2022 were subject to an unauthorised deduction of £681.23 net; and notice pay of £338.02 gross for two weeks' outstanding statutory notice, the claimant having been entitled to six weeks' notice but receiving four. The written component figures in the judgment total £2,540.35, although paragraph 1 states a total award of £2,540.38.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment calculated using 6 years' service, an age multiplier of 1.5, and gross weekly pay of £169.01. | Upheld | — | £1,521 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared that the claimant's wages for February 2022 were subject to an unauthorised deduction of £681.23 net. | Upheld | — | £681 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was awarded for two weeks' outstanding statutory notice; the claimant was entitled to six weeks' notice but received four weeks. | Upheld | — | £338 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,540
- 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.