Case 1400460/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Kairos Print Services Ltd and FM print Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400460/2019
- Decision date
- 27 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Sharp’s claims against Kairos Print Services Ltd and FM Print Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) were heard at Southampton on 27 November 2019 before Employment Judge Rayner, with no appearance for the respondents. The tribunal extended time for the claimant to file his claims in respect of notice pay and unpaid holiday pay.
The tribunal then held that the claimant’s claims for holiday pay, notice pay and redundancy pay succeeded. It ordered the respondents to pay a total of £5,287.52, broken down as £1,119.79 holiday pay, £1,119.76 notice pay and £3,048.00 redundancy pay.
The extracted judgment gives the outcomes and the award figures, but contains no further reasoning or separate findings beyond those dispositional points.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal extended time for the holiday pay claim and held that it succeeded. It awarded £1,119.79 for unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,120 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal extended time for the notice pay claim and held that it succeeded. It awarded £1,119.76 for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,120 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the redundancy pay claim succeeded and awarded £3,048.00. | Upheld | — | £3,048 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,288
- 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.