Case 3300143/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300143/2023
- 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 reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Huntingdon by CVP on 6 November 2023 before Employment Judge M Ord. By consent, the correct respondent title was recorded as Mawsley Day Nursery Limited, and duplicate case numbers 3300139/2023 and 3300459/2023 were dismissed. The case proceeded under 3300143/2023. The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed on 13 December 2022 on the ground of redundancy, and that the respondent had ceased to trade, had no financial resources, and there was a proposal to strike the company off the register.
The tribunal recorded that, at the time of dismissal, the claimant was entitled to notice pay of £4,377.60, statutory redundancy pay of £5,107.20, outstanding holiday pay of £90.25 recorded as a negative figure, and pay including overtime of £1,734.00. Judgment was entered for those sums by consent/default, producing a total owed of £11,128.55. The judgment does not set out a contested liability analysis beyond those recorded sums.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded as part of the judgment by default / by consent. | Upheld | — | £4,378 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy pay awarded in the stated sum. | Upheld | — | £5,107 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded by the tribunal as '( - £90.25 )' and deducted from the total owed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Pay figure included overtime of £153.60. | Upheld | — | £1,734 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,129
- 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.