Case 1405955/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C. Goldring v Slam Trading Ltd (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1405955/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Scott Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C. Goldring
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Scott found that Mr C. Goldring was an employee and also a worker of Slam Trading Ltd (In Administration) within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal dealt with the claimant's entitlement to redundancy pay and the unfair dismissal complaint at the same hearing in Southampton on 5 January 2023.
The tribunal held that Mr Goldring was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. It accepted an average weekly pay of £195.50 and six years' continuous service at the date of dismissal, with one year counted under 22 and five years counted over 22 and under 41. Using that calculation, the tribunal set the redundancy payment at £1,075.25 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The judgment states only that the claim was not well founded and did not succeed, and no separate compensation was awarded in relation to that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. It recorded average weekly pay of £195.50 and 6 years' continuous service, with 1 year under 22 and 5 years over 22 and under 41, and calculated the payment at £1,075.25. | Upheld | — | £1,075 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,075
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 ERA 1996
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.