Case 6009047/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Malone v Fika Recruitment Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009047/2024
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Porter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Malone
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 30 June 2025 before Employment Judge Porter sitting alone, the tribunal amended the respondent's name to Fika Recruitment Limited. The unfair dismissal claim was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal, so the judgment does not contain a merits finding on that claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that she was entitled to a redundancy payment. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,730.76 by way of redundancy payment.
The tribunal also found that the respondent terminated the claimant's contract without giving the notice due under the contract and the statutory notice provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996. The breach of contract claim succeeded and the tribunal ordered compensation equal to three week's net pay, being £1,449.18.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was 'dismissed upon withdrawal', so it is treated as withdrawn rather than determined on the merits. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that she was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,730.76. | Upheld | — | £1,731 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent terminated the claimant's contract without the notice due under the contract and the statutory notice provisions, and ordered compensation of three week's net pay of £1,449.18. | Upheld | — | £1,449 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,180
- 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.