Case 3310701/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K. Black v Banbury BID Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3310701/2024
- Decision date
- 8 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K. Black
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge McNeill KC, sitting alone at Reading (by CVP) on 8 January 2026, heard the claims of Ms K. Black against Banbury BID Ltd. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr Ian Thomas, a Director of the Respondent.
The Tribunal upheld the Claimant's claim for unpaid wages and ordered the Respondent to pay £136.95. It also upheld her claim for a redundancy payment and ordered payment of £660.00. The claim for unfair dismissal was found to be well-founded and upheld, with a compensatory award of £562.16 ordered.
The total sum payable by the Respondent to the Claimant is £1,359.11. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages claim upheld; Respondent ordered to pay £136.95. | Upheld | — | £137 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment claim upheld; Respondent ordered to pay £660.00. | Upheld | — | £660 |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim well-founded and upheld; compensatory award of £562.16 ordered. Written reasons not provided unless requested within 14 days. | Upheld | — | £562 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,359
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £562
- 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.