Case 6005046/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Woolfenden v Independent Costs Assessment Service Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6005046/2024
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Woolfenden
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 by Employment Judge Khan. The tribunal found that the claimant, Mrs L Woolfenden, was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £6,884 gross. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,436.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued but untaken annual leave entitlement on termination of employment, and ordered payment of £4,576 gross in respect of that entitlement. The total sum payable by the respondent under the judgment is £18,896.
The judgment does not set out a narrative of findings of fact or reasoning beyond the operative orders, consistent with a Rule 21 default judgment. A separate notice addressed the statutory interest position under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £6,884 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £7,436 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay accrued but untaken annual leave entitlement on termination, classified under holiday_pay (Working Time Regulations). | Upheld | — | £4,576 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,896
- 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.