Case 3302787/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Scott v Derek Dorman T/A Ultimate Eyewear Company — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302787/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smyth Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Scott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Smyth, sitting alone at Watford Employment Tribunal on 29 September 2025, heard the claims of Mrs E Scott against Derek Dorman T/A Ultimate Eyewear Company, with both parties appearing in person. The name of the respondent was amended to Derek Dorman T/A Ultimate Eyewear Company.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for statutory redundancy pay under section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered the respondent to pay £7,500. The tribunal also upheld the claimant's claim for statutory notice pay and ordered the respondent to pay £2,074 as payment in lieu of notice.
The total sum of £9,574.00 was ordered to be paid within 14 days of the judgment. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Awarded under section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £7,500 |
| Breach of contract | Statutory notice pay awarded as payment in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £2,074 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,574
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.