Case 6031939/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Fletcher v The Studio (Newbiggin) Ltd (dissolved) and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6031939/2025
- Decision date
- 12 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss M Fletcher
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a hair stylist by the First Respondent (The Studio (Newbiggin) Ltd) from 20 May 2019 until her redundancy on 6 February 2025. The First Respondent went into voluntary liquidation and was subsequently dissolved on 1 December 2025. The claim form was presented on 29 August 2025, 24 days after the primary six-month time limit at section 164(1) ERA 1996.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant's reasons for the delay — lack of access to a phone, laptop or internet, and severe anxiety and depression worsened by the redundancy — supported a finding under section 164(2) ERA 1996 that it was just and equitable that she should receive a redundancy payment. Although the First Respondent had been dissolved before the hearing, the Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to make a declaration of accrued rights under section 164 because the proceedings were a reference rather than a complaint and no order was being made against the former employer. The Tribunal made a declaration that the claimant qualified for a redundancy payment in the amount of £1,372.80 calculated under section 162 ERA 1996; any application for payment from the Secretary of State as statutory guarantor under section 166 ERA 1996 will be a separate matter.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Reference to the Tribunal under section 164 ERA 1996 as to the right to and amount of a redundancy payment. The claim was presented 24 days after the primary 6-month time limit; the Tribunal found it just and equitable that the claimant should receive a redundancy payment under section 164(2) given her lack of access to electronic communication and severe anxiety and depression. The amount of £1,372.80 calculated under section 162 ERA 1996 was confirmed by declaration. The First Respondent has been dissolved; enforcement against it would require restoration to the register. | Upheld | — | £1,373 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,373
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,373
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 162 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 164(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 164(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 166 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Rule 95 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- just and equitable test
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.