Case 1800610/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Nelson and Mr DP Hague v Ramus Seafoods Limited AT A HEARING BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800610/2020
- Decision date
- 25 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Nelson and Mr DP Hague
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was conducted by telephone because of the covid-19 postponement of face-to-face hearings, and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal amended the respondent's name to Ramus Seafoods Limited and accepted the claimants' evidence about their employment and termination. It found that each claimant had been given notice of redundancy dated 30 October 2019 to expire on 30 November 2019, with last working day 29 November 2019, and that they had been paid wages up to termination.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal awarded redundancy payments to both claimants: Mr Nelson £4,420.80 and Mr Hague £4,377.60. Mr Hague's calculation was corrected to 12 weeks' pay by applying section 145(5) Employment Rights Act 1996 to extend the relevant date. | Upheld | — | £8,798 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment described this as 'wrongful dismissal (breach of contract)'. The tribunal awarded gross notice pay to both claimants: Mr Nelson £1,289.40 and Mr Hague £912.00. | Upheld | — | £2,201 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded compensation for accrued but untaken holiday to both claimants: Mr Nelson £641.02 and Mr Hague £269.95. | Upheld | — | £911 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,911
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.145(5) 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.