Case 6000647/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L. Bermingham v The Sidmouth Club — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000647/2024
- Decision date
- 11 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L. Bermingham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Bermingham brought proceedings against The Sidmouth Club. At this preliminary hearing, the respondent said the dismissal was for redundancy because it no longer had a need for a paid Bar Steward and had replaced those duties with volunteers. The respondent had received advice that this was not a redundancy situation because the duties were still being performed, albeit by volunteers.
Employment Judge Smail rejected that approach and held that there had been a reduction in the need for employees to perform the role. The judgment records that this was sufficient for redundancy and that a redundancy payment was due. The tribunal made no determination on the claimant's separate case that the dismissal was unfair and discriminatory, which was expressly noted as being without prejudice.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a redundancy payment of £969.18 within 14 days. No separate award breakdown beyond that redundancy payment was provided in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal accepted that there had been a reduction in the need for employees to perform the Bar Steward role, even though volunteers were carrying out the duties. The judgment says this was without prejudice to the claimant's separate case that the dismissal was unfair and discriminatory. | Upheld | — | £969 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £969
- 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.