Case 1600571/2020 · Employment Tribunal
IN PERSON FOR THE v Mr Foster (director) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600571/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote hearing on 14 to 15 January 2021, before Employment Judge S Povey sitting alone, the tribunal found in favour of both claimants against Revector Technologies Limited. Mr K Apsley's claims for a statutory redundancy payment, notice pay and unlawful deductions from wages were made out and allowed. Mr J Gould's claims for a statutory redundancy payment and unlawful deductions from wages were also made out and allowed.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr K Apsley £16,401.80, made up of £8,500 notice pay, £3,675 statutory redundancy payment, £2,833.33 wages, £1,013.47 holiday pay and £380 expenses. It ordered the respondent to pay Mr J Gould £3,407.70, made up of £2,000 wages, £923.08 statutory redundancy payment, £184.62 holiday pay and £300 bank charges. The combined amount ordered across both claimants was £19,809.50.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | First Claimant (Mr K Apsley). The tribunal allowed the statutory redundancy payment claim. | Upheld | — | £3,675 |
| Breach of contract | First Claimant (Mr K Apsley). Notice pay was awarded as part of the £16,401.80 total. | Upheld | — | £8,500 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First Claimant (Mr K Apsley). The award for this head comprised wages, holiday pay and expenses. | Upheld | — | £4,227 |
| Redundancy | Second Claimant (Mr J Gould). The tribunal allowed the statutory redundancy payment claim. | Upheld | — | £923 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second Claimant (Mr J Gould). The award for this head comprised wages, holiday pay and bank charges. | Upheld | — | £2,485 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,810
- 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.