Case 6021436/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sophie Dunne v Blackbloors Ltd trading as The Button Tree — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021436/2024
- Decision date
- 3 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sophie Dunne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to respond to the notice and order approved by Employment Judge Smart on 3 March 2025 by the deadline of 27 June 2025 or at all, and the response was therefore dismissed. Rule 22 applied, restricting the respondent's participation in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Tribunal.
On the available material, including the claim form and matters accepted in the response, the Tribunal determined that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. She was entitled to a redundancy payment calculated on the basis of monthly pay of £1,100 (equivalent to £254 per week) and 2 years' service.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £508 in redundancy pay. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Camp in the Employment Tribunals in Birmingham on 8 January 2026.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded £508 in redundancy pay based on weekly pay of £254 and 2 years' service. Response was dismissed under Rule 22 after the respondent failed to comply with the notice and order. | Upheld | — | £508 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £508
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22
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.