Case 6001199/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. G Kaur v Age UK Derby & Derbyshire — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001199/2023
- Decision date
- 2 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown Members
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mr Saddique, Ms Bonsey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. G Kaur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Nottingham on 24 February 2025, chaired by Employment Judge L Brown with members Mr Saddique and Ms Bonsey, recorded that Mrs G Kaur appeared in person and Age UK Derby & Derbyshire also appeared in person. The written judgment contains two substantive outcomes and states that oral reasons were given at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided.
The tribunal rejected the complaint of breach of contract in relation to an enhanced redundancy payment. It recorded that this complaint was not well-founded and failed. The written record does not split out any financial award for this claim, and no remedy figure is stated in the judgment.
The tribunal also rejected the unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and failed. The judgment does not provide the tribunal's oral reasoning, does not record any separate remedy, and does not state any award in favour of the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records this as a complaint of breach of contract in relation to an enhanced redundancy payment and states that it was not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.