Case 3301373/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Fiona Digby v West Cambs Federation CIC (in liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301373/2024
- Decision date
- 25 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Fiona Digby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent closed and made over 100 employees redundant on 9 January 2024 via a Teams meeting, with dismissals taking immediate effect and without consultation. The Respondent was then placed into creditors' voluntary liquidation, and the liquidators provided the information needed for the government department to pay the Claimant her redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay, which she received. The claim before the tribunal was therefore limited to a protective award for the lack of consultation.
At the start of the hearing the Judge telephoned one of the two liquidators, Katherine Merry of PEM, who consented to the claim being heard. The Respondent did not enter an appearance and the Claimant appeared in person.
Because there was no notice of redundancy for a cohort exceeding 100, Employment Judge Housego made a protective award of 45 days' pay covering the period 10 January 2024 to 23 February 2024. Calculated on the Claimant's salary of £1,910 pcm (£440.77 weekly for a 30-hour, 4-day week), 6 weeks came to £2,644.62 and 3 days came to £330.58, totalling £2,975.20, which the Respondent was ordered to pay.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under TULRCA 1992 s.189 for failure to consult on collective redundancy of a cohort exceeding 100 employees. The gov.uk listing categorised this as 'Unfair Dismissal', but the judgment itself adjudicates only a protective award; redundancy pay, notice pay and holiday pay had already been paid by the government department via the liquidators. | Upheld | — | £2,975 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,975
- 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.