Case 1600961/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Protheroe v Mel Wake Joinery Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 1600961/2017
- Decision date
- 23 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Protheroe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present an ET3 response form. Employment Judge S Davies said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal upheld Mr R Protheroe's claim for notice pay in the gross sum of £2,137.12 and his claim for a redundancy payment of £9,620.00.
The judgment recorded that the claimant was responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sum awarded in respect of unpaid wages. No separate breakdown of remedy beyond the two upheld sums was given, and no other claims or deductions were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment upheld notice pay of £2,137.12 gross. It did not expressly label the legal cause of action, but the award was made as notice pay under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £2,137 |
| Redundancy | The judgment upheld the redundancy payment claim in the sum of £9,620.00. | Upheld | — | £9,620 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,757
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal's 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.