Case 3304178/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Stenson, Counsel For the v Mr D Byron, Director — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304178/2022
- Decision date
- 27 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Ord Appearances
- Venue
- Huntingdon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Stenson, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Ade Ola Williams was employed by Westgate House Limited as a nurse from 13 January 2016. The tribunal recorded that she reduced her hours on 7 September 2021 and that the respondent knew she had a second job. The claim presented on 1 April 2022 included a redundancy payment, a protected award and breach of contract.
The tribunal accepted that staff consultation meetings had taken place on 17 and 18 November 2021 and that a single representative, Mr Amidu Koroma, had been elected to discuss the redundancies. It also found that the claimant was aware of what was happening, that she had been invited to a one-to-one consultation meeting on 6 December 2021 but chose not to attend, and that the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were satisfied. On that basis, the protected award claim was dismissed as not well founded.
The tribunal found that the claimant's employment ended on 16 December 2021 by reason of redundancy, that she was paid in full up to that date including holiday pay, and that she had subsequently received her redundancy pay. It found that she had not been placed on notice. Five weeks' notice was due, and at the accepted average net weekly wage of £546.41 the breach of contract award was £2,732.05.
At the end of the hearing the claimant applied for costs, relying on alleged unreasonable conduct in the respondent's preparation for the case. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had failed to engage properly with case preparation, but it took account of the respondent's limited means and Mr Byron's health and declined to make a costs order. The claimant's application for costs was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was not placed on notice and awarded five weeks' net pay at the accepted average net weekly wage of £546.41. | Upheld | — | £2,732 |
| Redundancy | The application for a redundancy payment was dismissed on withdrawal; the judgment also records that the claimant subsequently received her redundancy pay. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Protected award claim arising from the redundancy consultation process; the tribunal found the collective and individual consultation requirements were met and dismissed the remainder of the claims as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,732
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 76 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.