Case 1403010/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Hicks v K3 Business Technologies Ltd (in administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403010/2020
- Decision date
- 14 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Hicks
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Andrew Hicks had been unfairly dismissed by reason of unfair selection for redundancy. It ordered K3 Business Technologies Limited (In Administration) to pay compensation for unfair dismissal made up of £5,359.65 gross loss of earnings, calculated at £357.31 for 15 weeks, and £12,900.00 gross contractual notice pay for three months.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to comply with the collective consultation requirements in section 188 of TULRCA 1992. It made a protective award under section 189 of TULRCA 1992 and awarded three weeks' gross pay of £2,976.92. The written record notes that the reasons had been given orally at the hearing and later sent to the parties on 14 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had been unfairly dismissed by reason of unfair selection for redundancy. The compensation recorded under this head comprised £5,359.65 gross loss of earnings and £12,900.00 gross contractual notice pay for three months. | Upheld | — | £18,260 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to comply with the consultation requirements in section 188 of TULRCA 1992 and made a protective award under section 189. The award was three weeks' gross pay, recorded as £2,976.92. | Upheld | — | £2,977 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,237
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £18,260
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 188 TULRCA 1992
- section 189 TULRCA 1992
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.