Case 3305954/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss W Day v Meadowbrook Montessori Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305954/2023
- Decision date
- 14 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss W Day
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a Rule 21 hearing in Reading by CVP on 14 June 2024, with the respondent absent and no representation, Employment Judge Anstis found that Miss W Day had been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal awarded compensation of £12,107.50, described as the gross amount of her notice pay.
The tribunal also found that Meadowbrook Montessori Limited had breached the claimant's contract by failing to make pension contributions and awarded £172.44 in damages. It further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and ordered a redundancy payment of £7,716.00. The judgment states that the claimant's other claims were dismissed, but the extracted text does not identify those claims individually.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's other claims were dismissed, but the extracted text does not identify those claims individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation of £12,107.50, described as the gross amount of her notice pay. | Upheld | — | £12,108 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract for failure to make pension contributions and awarded damages of £172.44. | Upheld | — | £172 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,716.00. | Upheld | — | £7,716 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,996
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £12,108
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.