Case 6047130/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Redshaw v James Buxton T/a Stapleton and Son — 2026
- Case reference
- 6047130/2025
- Decision date
- 18 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Redshaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a judgment made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, the Tribunal recorded that James Buxton T/a Stapleton and Son had admitted that Mrs E Redshaw was entitled to the remedies determined. The Tribunal found that Mrs Redshaw was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £6,161.52 in damages. It also found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £15,403.80.
The Tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay Mrs Redshaw's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £684.94. These awards total £22,250.26. Mrs Redshaw also sought an award under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in respect of the breach-of-contract and holiday-pay claims; the respondent denied entitlement to that award, and the issue was left for a video hearing to be listed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for breach of contract in respect of notice. The claimed section 207A uplift was disputed and was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | £6,162 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £15,404 |
| Holiday pay | Award for unpaid holiday entitlement. The claimed section 207A uplift was disputed and was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | £685 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,250
- across all upheld claims
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.