Case 6017553/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Tania Matthews v Mr Steve Austen and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6017553/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Tania Matthews
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The claim against Mr Steve Austen was dismissed because Coronita Ltd was Tania Matthews's employer.
The tribunal found that Ms Matthews was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered Coronita Ltd to pay £1,200 in damages. It also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,800. Coronita Ltd was ordered to pay her £3,000 in total.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim succeeded against the Second Respondent, Coronita Ltd. The claim against the First Respondent, Mr Steve Austen, was dismissed because the tribunal found that the Second Respondent was the Claimant's employer. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
| Redundancy | The Claimant was found entitled to a redundancy payment from the Second Respondent, Coronita Ltd. The claim against the First Respondent, Mr Steve Austen, was dismissed because the tribunal found that the Second Respondent was the Claimant's employer. | Upheld | — | £1,800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.