Case 1600960/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Richards v Mel Wake Joinery Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 1600960/2017
- Decision date
- 23 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Richards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Davies determined the claim in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent and recorded that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment upheld the claimant’s notice pay claim and awarded £2,251.62 gross. It also upheld the redundancy payment claim and awarded £9,450.00.
The judgment records that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sum awarded in respect of unpaid wages. No further factual findings or split remedy calculation are set out in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay (gross) was upheld and awarded at £2,251.62. | Upheld | — | £2,252 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment was upheld and awarded at £9,450.00. | Upheld | — | £9,450 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,702
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.