Case 3316475/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Spence For the v In person. — 2022
- Case reference
- 3316475/2021
- Decision date
- 14 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Spence For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 9 March 2022 at Bury St Edmunds, Employment Judge Laidler found that the claimant was dismissed and did not resign. The tribunal found that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and that it was unfair in all of the circumstances of the case.
On remedy, the tribunal held that the procedural unfairness would have made no difference to the outcome, so the claimant was not entitled to any compensatory award. The only award made was the statutory redundancy/basic award of £5,049.
The tribunal also recorded that the claims of breach of contract and unauthorised deduction from wages failed and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed and did not resign, held that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy, and found the dismissal unfair in all of the circumstances. It also found that the procedural unfairness would have made no difference to the outcome, so there was no compensatory award. The award made was the statutory redundancy/basic award of £5,049. | Upheld | — | £5,049 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim of breach of contract fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim of unauthorised deduction from wages fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,049
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,049
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.