Case 3328245/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Dunn v Smart Money Online and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3328245/2019
- Decision date
- 17 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms R Dunn
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms R Dunn, appeared in person. The respondents entered no response, did not attend, and were not represented. The tribunal noted that the time limit for presenting a response had expired on 29 August 2020 and that it was able to determine the matter on the available material. It also granted permission to amend the claim to include a complaint under regulation 15 of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 based on an alleged failure to consult under regulation 13.
The tribunal declared that the complaint that the respondents failed to comply with regulation 13 of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006, and that the claimant was an affected employee, was well founded. It ordered Smart Money Online to pay compensation for failing to consult under regulation 15 in respect of 45 days, calculated at £85.48 per day, producing an award of £3,846.60. Elife Media Limited was held jointly and severally liable for that award.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,294.35 gross/net. It further recorded that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded £350.00 compensation for unfair dismissal. The judgment does not split the unfair dismissal award into basic and compensatory components, and no interest or injury to feelings award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Complaint under regulation 13/15 of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 for failure to consult. The tribunal declared the complaint well founded and awarded 45 days' compensation at £85.48 per day. The second respondent was jointly and severally liable for the award. | Upheld | — | £3,847 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £4,294.35 gross/net. | Upheld | — | £4,294 |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted text says the claimant 'as unfairly dismissed'; in context this appears to record a finding of unfair dismissal and an award of £350.00 compensation. | Upheld | — | £350 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,491
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £350
- 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.