Case 1602112/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Thomas v Derwood Homes & Developments Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602112/2019
- Decision date
- 9 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Derwood Homes & Developments Limited dismissed Mr J Thomas on grounds of redundancy on 28 June 2019. It recorded that he had 8 complete years of service at the date of dismissal.
Applying s.162 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal calculated Mr Thomas's statutory redundancy payment by reference to a weekly gross pay of £519.69 and 1.5 weeks' gross pay for each of the 8 years of service, because he was aged 41 and over throughout the employment. On that basis, it held that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,236.28.
The tribunal noted that the respondent company had ceased trading and that recovery of the debt may be difficult. It referred Mr Thomas to s.166(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 as the route to seek payment from the National Insurance Fund if he cannot recover the sum from the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy on 28 June 2019 and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment calculated under s.162 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £6,236 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,236
- 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.