Case 3300138/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300138/2023
- Decision date
- 19 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Ord Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the tribunal corrected the respondent's title to Mawsley Day Nursery Limited and proceeded under case number 3300138/2023. It dismissed case numbers 3300144/2023 and 3300458/2023 as duplicate cases. The hearing was before Employment Judge M Ord at Huntingdon by CVP on 6 November 2023.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant was dismissed on 13 December 2022 on the ground of redundancy. It also noted that the respondent had ceased to trade, had no financial resources, and that there was a proposal to strike the company off the Register.
At the date of dismissal, the claimant was entitled by default judgment to notice pay of £2,660.00, statutory redundancy pay of £2,660.00, outstanding holiday pay of £665.00, and outstanding pay for December of £1,440.83. The total sum awarded was £7,425.83, and the judgment says that sum was entered by consent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment by default for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,660 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy pay awarded by default. | Upheld | — | £2,660 |
| Holiday pay | Outstanding holiday pay awarded by default. | Upheld | — | £665 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records this only as 'outstanding pay for month of December'; classified as an unpaid wages claim. | Upheld | — | £1,441 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,426
- 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.