Case 1602111/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Reeves v Derwood Homes & Developments Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602111/2019
- Decision date
- 9 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Reeves
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the correct name of the respondent was Derwood Homes & Developments Limited and found that Mr Reeves was dismissed on grounds of redundancy on 28 June 2019. It recorded that he had 8 complete years of service at that date.
Applying section 162 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal calculated Mr Reeves’s weekly gross pay at £699.92, capped at £525 per week for the statutory redundancy calculation. On that basis, using 1.5 weeks’ pay for each of the 8 years because he was aged 41 or over throughout the employment, the statutory redundancy payment came to £6,300.
The tribunal stated that the respondent company had ceased trading and that Mr Reeves was likely to face difficulty recovering the debt from the respondent. It therefore referred him to section 166(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, which explains the right to claim payment from the National Insurance Fund if the respondent does not pay.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the respondent had dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy on 28 June 2019 and that he had 8 complete years of service. | Upheld | — | £6,300 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,300
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.162 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.166(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 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.