Case 3202615/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Sarah Madley v Mr Paul Gallivan — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202615/2020
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Knight Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Sarah Madley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Sarah Madley brought claims against Mr Paul Gallivan arising from the termination of her employment. At the hearing on 12 February 2021, Employment Judge S Knight recorded that the Respondent did not attend and was unrepresented.
The tribunal upheld three claims. It found that the Respondent wrongfully dismissed the Claimant, made an unauthorised deduction from her wages, and failed to pay redundancy pay. The judgment does not give separate factual findings for each claim beyond those conclusions, and it does not set out a breakdown of the award by head of loss.
The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £2,060.63 in total. No further remedy components are identified in the judgment, and no panel members are listed beyond the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the Respondent wrongfully dismissed the Claimant. The judgment does not split the monetary award between the successful claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant’s wages. The judgment records only a single overall award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant redundancy pay. The judgment records only a single overall award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,061
- 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.