Case 6013036/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Wendy Montague-Bugg v St Stephens Pre School CIC — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013036/2025
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Wendy Montague-Bugg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Wendy Montague-Bugg’s case was heard at East London Hearing Centre by telephone on 5 September 2025 before Employment Judge Gardiner. The respondent, St Stephens Pre-School Community Interest Company, did not attend. The tribunal recorded the judgment orally at the hearing and said written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £616.60. It also held that she was entitled to two weeks’ notice pay in the sum of £411.07 gross. A further award was made for £761.32 gross as an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, relating to work undertaken between 1 and 26 March 2025.
No discrimination, unfair dismissal, or other liability findings were recorded in the judgment. The total monetary award recorded by the tribunal was £1,788.99, made up of the three sums above.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £617 |
| Breach of contract | Award for two weeks' notice pay, described in the judgment as gross. | Upheld | — | £411 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award made under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to unpaid work between 1 and 26 March 2025; judgment records the amount as gross. | Upheld | — | £761 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,789
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.23 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.