Case 3312037/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Tang v Cliche Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312037/2020
- Decision date
- 17 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Tang
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Watford hearing on 17 March 2022, before Employment Judge Maxwell and with no attendance for the respondent, the tribunal recorded that Miss L Tang was entitled to notice pay and to a redundancy payment. The claimant appeared in person.
For notice pay, the tribunal calculated three months' pay at £2,250, giving £6,750, and deducted £2,400 already received from the Insolvency Service. That left £4,350 due to the claimant. For redundancy pay, the tribunal applied 20 years as the maximum countable service, used a multiplier of 1.5 because the claimant was above 41 throughout her employment, and applied a weekly figure of £519.23 based on £27,000 divided by 52, giving £15,576.92 before deduction.
After deducting £6,000 already received from the Insolvency Service, the tribunal held that £9,576.92 remained due in respect of the redundancy payment. The judgment does not record any other heads of claim, legal test, or interest award, and the total balance payable on the face of the judgment was £13,926.92.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded as 3 months' pay at £2,250 (£6,750), less £2,400 received from the Insolvency Service, leaving £4,350 due. | Upheld | — | £4,350 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment calculated on 20 years (the maximum that may be counted), multiplied by 1.5 because the claimant was above 41 throughout her employment, at a weekly figure of £519.23 (£27,000 / 52), totalling £15,576.92 before deducting £6,000 received from the Insolvency Service. | Upheld | — | £9,577 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,927
- 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.