Case 6006398/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Rosu v Millers Property Services (in creditors' voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006398/2024
- Decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Rosu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Alliott, sitting alone at Watford Employment Tribunal by CVP on 27 June 2025, determined that Miss M Rosu had been dismissed by reason of redundancy by Millers Property Services (in creditors' voluntary liquidation). The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not attend.
On the basis of the claimant's date of birth (12 April 1979), her start date of 30 January 2012, her redundancy on 12 April 2024 at age 45, twelve years of full service, and a salary of £33,500 per annum (£644.23 per week), the tribunal calculated a statutory redundancy entitlement of 14 x £644.23. The respondent was accordingly ordered to pay the claimant a redundancy payment of £9,019.23.
The judgment was given orally at the hearing and approved on 11 July 2025; written reasons were not provided in the document. No other claims, remedies, or findings are recorded in the available text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and ordered the respondent to pay a statutory redundancy payment of £9,019.23 (14 x £644.23). | Upheld | — | £9,019 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,019
- 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.