Case 1305249/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Taylor v Codestorm Ltd — 2024

Case reference: 1305249/2023
Decision date: 16 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Fitzgerald Representation
Venue: Midlands West

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Taylor

Respondent

Codestorm Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim for a redundancy payment was successful. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant 2640 pounds for that claim.

The claim for failure to issue a statement of particulars of employment under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed. The claim for failure to issue a pay advice statement on termination of employment under section 11 Employment Rights Act 1996 was successful, with compensation of 86.40 pounds awarded for that breach. Written reasons were not included in the judgment record because reasons were given orally.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	Recorded from the judgment.	Upheld	—	£2,640
Other	Claim for failure to issue a statement of particulars of employment pursuant to section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Claim for failure to issue a pay advice statement on termination of employment pursuant to section 11 Employment Rights Act 1996.	Upheld	—	£86

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £2,726; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.