Case 6002250/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D McDermott v Blackmore-Esslinger Construction Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002250/2024
- Decision date
- 26 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D McDermott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss D McDermott had been unfairly dismissed by Blackmore-Esslinger Construction Group Limited. It also found that her redundancy payment claim was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay £1,759.14.
The claimant's notice pay claim was also well founded. The tribunal recorded that credit had been given for money paid to the claimant on 3 April 2024 and ordered payment of £2,190 for notice pay.
At remedy, the tribunal stated that there was no separate basic award for unfair dismissal because the claimant had been awarded a redundancy payment. It also stated that there was no additional compensatory award because the claimant's loss was her notice pay, which had been awarded separately. The respondent was ordered to pay a total of £3,949.14.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. At remedy, it recorded that there was no separate basic award because the claimant had been awarded a redundancy payment, and no additional compensatory award because the claimant's loss was her notice pay, which was awarded in the notice pay claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant's redundancy payment claim was well founded and the respondent was ordered to pay £1,759.14. | Upheld | — | £1,759 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's notice pay claim was well founded. The tribunal recorded that credit had been given for money paid to the claimant on 3 April 2024, and ordered payment of £2,190. | Upheld | — | £2,190 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,949
- 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.