Case 1303583/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Phillip Ronald Morris v Yeleran Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303583/2022
- Decision date
- 2 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Phillip Ronald Morris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands (West) Employment Tribunals on 14 August 2022 and sent to the respondent at the address of its sole director on 16 August 2022. It was re-sent to the respondent's registered office on 2 November 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and Judge Camp determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal recorded that Mr Phillip Ronald Morris had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. On that basis, Judge Camp held that Yeleran Limited must pay a redundancy payment of £6,058.39. The figure was calculated by reference to Mr Morris's gross weekly pay of £448.77, his monthly pay of £1,950, his age of 61 at the date of redundancy, and 9 whole years' continuous service.
The hearing listed for 6 March 2023 was cancelled. The judgment also notes that enforcement of the award is via the County Court, and that if the respondent cannot pay because it is insolvent, the claimant may be able to seek payment through the insolvency service via the Redundancy Payments Office.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Default judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response in time. The redundancy payment was calculated from gross weekly pay of £448.77, monthly pay of £1,950, age 61 at the redundancy date, and 9 whole years' continuous service. | Upheld | — | £6,058 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,058
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.