Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The decision of the tribunal Chairman sitting alone is that the claimant�s claims are well founded and the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the total sum of �3,057.78.
The claim was considered heard together with the claims of her former colleagues. �The tribunal considered the oral and documentary evidence, including proof of earnings, of the claimant and her former colleagues before reaching a decision. �The claimant confirmed that her claim reference number 2177/10 essentially duplicated claim reference number 2332/10 therefore the former claim is dismissed.
The tribunal found the following facts to be proven on a balance of probabilities:
At the effective date of dismissal the claimant was 45 years old and had 10 full years� service. �Her gross and net weekly pay figures were �117 and �114.18 respectively. �The respondent has not responded to the claimant�s requests for a redundancy payment or notice pay. �The claimant lodged her complaint with the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal on 26 September 2010. �No response was entered by or on behalf of the respondent.
Article 170 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order (the �1996 Order�) provides the right to receive a redundancy payment where, as in the present case, the employment is terminated by reason of redundancy.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.