Case 6006004/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Battelley v Orchard Works Garage Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006004/2025
- Decision date
- 9 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Knowles Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Battelley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claim for a statutory redundancy payment was brought within the period set out in Section 164(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that it was just and equitable that the claimant should receive a redundancy payment.
Under Section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £8,085, calculated by reference to 1.5 weeks' gross basic pay of £490 for each of 11 complete years of employment.
The complaint of breach of contract for notice pay was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and dismissed that complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined under Section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £8,085. | Upheld | — | £8,085 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint for notice pay was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,085
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 164(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 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.