Case 6010552/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Dyson v Wills O Nats Huddersfield Ltd Heard Sheffield by video — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010552/2025
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Dyson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Brain, sitting at Sheffield by video on 19 December 2025, heard the claim of Miss R Dyson against Wills O Nats Huddersfield Ltd. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not attend and had not entered an appearance.
The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy on 25 November 2024. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a redundancy payment of £5,175.00, together with £2,170.80 gross in respect of holiday pay accrued but untaken as at the date of dismissal.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and the written record notes that written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The other claim types referenced in the gov.uk listing (unfair dismissal, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, breach of contract, working time) are not addressed in the written judgment text available.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy on 25 November 2024 and ordered a redundancy payment of £5,175.00. | Upheld | — | £5,175 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal ordered payment of £2,170.80 gross for holiday accrued but untaken as of 25 November 2024. | Upheld | — | £2,171 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,346
- 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.