Case 6014087/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Neressa Poole v Terence Andrew Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014087/2024
- Decision date
- 24 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freshwater Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Neressa Poole
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at East London by CVP before Employment Judge Freshwater on 24 March 2025, found that the claimant had been dismissed by way of redundancy. The respondent did not appear and was not represented at the hearing.
The claimant's claim for notice pay (breach of contract) was held to be well-founded and succeeded, as did her complaint that the respondent had failed to pay a redundancy payment contrary to section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £6,984.00 (gross) in respect of notice pay and £14,841.00 (gross) in respect of the redundancy payment, giving a total of £21,825.00 (gross). Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay; tribunal found it well-founded and ordered £6,984.00 (gross). | Upheld | — | £6,984 |
| Redundancy | Complaint of failure to pay a redundancy payment contrary to s.135 ERA 1996; well-founded and succeeds. £14,841.00 (gross) ordered. | Upheld | — | £14,841 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,825
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 135 of the 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.