Case 3301422/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sushauna Sanderson v Woodside Community Association — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301422/2025
- Decision date
- 7 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sushauna Sanderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 3 March 2025. The Respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Young determined that the claim, or part of it, could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The judgment records that the tribunal proceeded on that basis and then determined the financial claims on the papers.
The tribunal found that the Claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,048.96. It also found that the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,716.00. In addition, the tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £593.94.
The total sum ordered was £3,358.90. The judgment does not record any separate award for interest, nor does it allocate a different overall remedy figure beyond the three amounts set out in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,048.96. | Upheld | — | £1,049 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £1,716.00. | Upheld | — | £1,716 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded £593.94. | Upheld | — | £594 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,359
- 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.