Case 3300407/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300407/2023
- 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 reasoningAt Huntingdon by CVP on 6 November 2023, before Employment Judge M Ord, the tribunal recorded by consent that the correct title of the respondent was Mawsley Day Nursery Limited. It found that Ms S Peacock was dismissed on 13 December 2022 on the ground of redundancy. The judgment also records 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 date of dismissal, the claimant was entitled to notice pay of £273.60, outstanding holiday pay of £255.36, and salary of £1,204.80, which included overtime of £19.20. It entered judgment for those sums, described in the order as judgment by default and also as by consent, giving a total award of £1,733.76.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Mapped to breach of contract because the judgment lists notice pay as a sum due on termination. | Upheld | — | £274 |
| Holiday pay | Mapped to holiday pay because the judgment expressly records outstanding holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £255 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mapped to unlawful deduction from wages because the judgment records salary, including overtime of £19.20, as an amount due. | Upheld | — | £1,205 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,734
- 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.