Case 6014833/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Lindsay Nortje v 3D Wealth Partners Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014833/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Lindsay Nortje
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cambridge Employment Tribunal on 23 and 24 June 2025 before Employment Judge Hutchings sitting alone. Mrs Lindsay Nortje appeared in person and 3D Wealth Partners Ltd was represented by its director, Mr Daniel Gallen. The tribunal recorded three complaints: failure to pay a redundancy payment, unfair dismissal, and breach of contract in relation to notice pay.
The judgment dismisses all three complaints, stating in each instance that the complaint was not well founded. The extracted text does not set out the tribunal's factual findings or legal reasoning beyond those outcomes. It also records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The written record states that the complaint that the respondent failed to pay a redundancy payment was not well founded and was dismissed. No written reasons are included in the extracted text; the judgment says reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. No written reasons are included in the extracted text; the judgment says reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was not well founded and was dismissed. No written reasons are included in the extracted text; the judgment says reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.