Case 1403655/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Thompson v Government Insolvency Service and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403655/2023
- Decision date
- 11 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beever
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Thompson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal declared that the Secretary of State ought to make a payment to Mr Thompson under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The total payment declared was £10,423.52. It was comprised of notice pay of £1,866.90, holiday pay of £1,555.75, and Basic Award/Statutory redundancy pay of £7,000.87. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons are included in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this component as notice pay under section 48(1)(b). | Upheld | — | £1,867 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this component as holiday pay under section 48(1)(c). | Upheld | — | £1,556 |
| Redundancy | The judgment describes this component as Basic Award/Statutory redundancy pay under section 48(1)(d). | Upheld | — | £7,001 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,424
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,001
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 182 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 48(1)(b)
- section 48(1)(c)
- section 48(1)(d)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.