Case 3207921/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Tanner v The Ridgeway Hotel Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3207921/2021
- Decision date
- 16 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Thackray Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs J Tanner
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt East London Hearing Centre on 1 June 2022, Employment Judge Thackray found that The Ridgeway Hotel Ltd was the Claimant's employer and dismissed all claims against Mr S Chrysanthou. The tribunal upheld the Claimant's breach of contract claim for notice pay and awarded £5,292, calculated as 12 weeks at £411 gross per week. It also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim and awarded £5,600 for underpayment at £70 per week over 80 weeks, as stated in the judgment.
The complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded in respect of a procedurally unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy. The tribunal awarded a redundancy payment of £12,568, a compensatory award of £1,764 for the time required for a fair procedure, and £400 for loss of statutory rights. It recorded that there were no further losses because the First Respondent had ceased trading and there was a 100% chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. Because a redundancy payment had been made, there was no separate basic award.
Separate awards were made for the failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars, contrary to s.38 Employment Act 2002, in the sum of £1,764, and for the failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal, contrary to section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996, in the sum of £882. All TUPE-related claims were withdrawn, the holiday pay claim was dismissed, the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 did not apply, and the total award was £28,270.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim succeeded; the tribunal awarded 12 weeks at £411 gross per week. | Upheld | — | £5,292 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underpayment claim succeeded; the extracted text states 80 weeks of £70 per week underpayment. The stated end date is 1 October 2022, which is inconsistent with the June 2022 decision date, so it is recorded as extracted. | Upheld | — | £5,600 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded at 19 years x 1.5 weeks' pay, using £411 per week. | Upheld | — | £12,568 |
| Unfair dismissal | Procedurally unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy. The compensatory award was £1,764 for the time required for a fair procedure, plus £400 for loss of statutory rights. The tribunal said there were no further losses because the First Respondent had ceased trading and there was a 100% chance the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. No separate basic award was made because a redundancy payment had been awarded. | Upheld | — | £2,164 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars contrary to s.38 Employment Act 2002; award of four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,764 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal contrary to section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996; award of two weeks' pay. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,270
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,764
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 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.