Case 1800016/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Ideson v Copras Specialities Limited Introduction/ — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800016/2024
- Decision date
- 28 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Ideson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was sent to the respondent's registered office on 27 February 2024. No response was presented by the return date or at all, and no application for an extension of time was made. Employment Judge JM Wade determined there was sufficient information on file, including an email from the claimant dated 21 May 2024, to give judgment under Rule 21.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of entitlement to a redundancy payment and ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £14,400. The claim for notice pay also succeeded, with a further gross sum of £5,760 awarded. The total payable by the respondent is £20,160.
The judgment noted that the claim did not include a claim for unpaid pension contributions, so no judgment could be given on that head. The hearing scheduled for the following day was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 21 judgment in default; gross sum awarded as redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £14,400 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim succeeded; treated as breach of contract under the §4.4 taxonomy. | Upheld | — | £5,760 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,160
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.