Case 3203860/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Luckock v Ardeigh House Community Association — 2023
- Case reference
- 3203860/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Park Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr J Webb, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Luckock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs C Luckock had 21 years' continuous service and was 78 when her employment ended on 26 January 2022. The tribunal found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy. It accepted that her normal week's pay was £133.65, based on average hours of 15 per week, and that on termination she was entitled to notice pay, a statutory redundancy payment and accrued holiday pay.
The claims for notice pay, statutory redundancy payment and holiday pay succeeded. The tribunal ordered £1,603.80 for notice pay, £4,009.50 for statutory redundancy pay, and £400.95 for holiday pay. The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded, but the tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy situation and that, had a fair procedure been followed, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. Because a statutory redundancy payment was already awarded, the basic award was reduced to nil under section 122(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, and no compensatory award was made.
The direct age discrimination claim succeeded only in part. The tribunal found discrimination in the respondent's failure to contact the claimant about the decision to close the kitchen/snack bar, its failure to pay a redundancy payment, and expecting the claimant not to make a fuss. It did not find that the decision to close the kitchen/snack bar and make the claimant redundant was itself direct age discrimination.
For the age discrimination findings, the tribunal awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings and interest of £385.75 at 8% for 352 days. It awarded no compensation for financial loss because the dismissal decision was not found to be discriminatory. The total amount awarded was £11,400.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was ordered in the sum of £1,603.80. | Upheld | — | £1,604 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded in the sum of £4,009.50, based on 21 years' continuous service and a week's pay of £133.65. | Upheld | — | £4,010 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay for 3 weeks' accrued untaken annual leave was awarded at £400.95 under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £401 |
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal was found to be by reason of redundancy. The tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy situation and that, had a fair procedure been followed, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. No compensatory award was made, and the basic award was reduced to nil because a statutory redundancy payment was also ordered. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination succeeded in respect of the respondent's failure to contact the claimant about the decision to close the kitchen/snack bar, failure to pay a redundancy payment, and expecting the claimant not to make a fuss. The tribunal awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings plus interest of £385.75; no financial loss compensation was awarded because the dismissal decision was not found discriminatory. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,400
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 122(4) Employment Rights Act 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.