Case 3201863/2024 · Employment Tribunal
William Alexander (Lead Claimant) Karen Hudson (Claimant) Sandra Brooker (Claimant) v Physmed Limited (t/a Clacton Chiropractic Clinic) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201863/2024
- Decision date
- 15 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Iman Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
William Alexander (Lead Claimant) Karen Hudson (Claimant) Sandra Brooker (Claimant)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Iman, sitting at the East London Hearing Centre on 15 September 2025, gave a Rule 22 judgment in three linked claims brought by William Alexander (lead claimant), Karen Hudson and Sandra Brooker against Physmed Limited (t/a Clacton Chiropractic Clinic). The Respondent did not submit a response to any of the claims and did not attend the hearing. Each claimant was self-represented.
The Judge found that the claims for a redundancy payment were well founded and succeeded under Rule 22. The Respondent was ordered to make the following redundancy payments: £1,890 to Karen Hudson in respect of 6 years' service; £1,518 to Sandra Brooker in respect of 9 years' service; and £9,922.50 to William Alexander in respect of 15 years' service. The Respondent was held responsible for deducting and paying any tax or National Insurance at source.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided in this record. No findings were made on any other heads of claim within this written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Karen Hudson — redundancy payment in respect of 6 years' service. Judgment issued under Rule 22 as the Respondent did not submit a response. | Upheld | — | £1,890 |
| Redundancy | Sandra Brooker — redundancy payment in respect of 9 years' service. Judgment issued under Rule 22 as the Respondent did not submit a response. | Upheld | — | £1,518 |
| Redundancy | William Alexander (Lead Claimant) — redundancy payment in respect of 15 years' service. Judgment issued under Rule 22 as the Respondent did not submit a response. | Upheld | — | £9,923 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,331
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22
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.