Case 6002034/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Rusnak v Dendro Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002034/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moyler REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Rusnak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 16 May 2025 before Employment Judge Moyler, the tribunal dealt with Ms B Rusnak's claims against Dendro Limited for a redundancy payment and for breach of contract in relation to notice pay. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that, under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,192.28.
The tribunal also found the breach of contract complaint about notice pay to be well-founded. It awarded £5,000 as damages, stating that the figure had been calculated using gross pay because the claimant was likely to have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. No separate findings on other claims or remedy components were recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,192.28. | Upheld | — | £5,192 |
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was found well-founded, and the tribunal awarded £5,000 as damages calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £5,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,192
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.