Case 3311127/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Dunphy v Round Green Pre School (Charity Number 1046943) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311127/2022
- Decision date
- 21 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Dunphy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not submit a response and did not appear or provide representation. Proceeding under Rule 21, Employment Judge Quill found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The award was calculated at £5,449.25 using gross weekly pay of £217.97, 19 years' complete service, and the claimant's age as at the last day of employment, 29 July 2022.
The tribunal also found a breach of contract in relation to notice. It held that the claimant should have received 3 months' notice but was given only 4 weeks' notice. On the tribunal's calculation, the claimant's net pay for the correct notice period would have been £1,982.08, whereas she received £738.52 for the period 1 July to 29 July 2022, so damages for breach of contract were assessed at £1,243.56. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £6,692.81.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment calculated from gross weekly pay of £217.97, 19 years' complete service, and her age on the last day of employment, 29 July 2022. | Upheld | — | £5,449 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the claimant's contract by giving 4 weeks' notice when her contractual entitlement was 3 months. It calculated damages by comparing the net pay due during the correct notice period with the net pay actually received. | Upheld | — | £1,244 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,693
- 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.