Case 1801940/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Cunningham v The Great Yorkshire Brewery Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801940/2023
- Decision date
- 29 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moxon Representation
- Venue
- Leeds via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Cunningham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Cunningham brought claims against The Great Yorkshire Brewery Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) concerning notice pay and redundancy pay. The Tribunal amended the Respondent’s name and first addressed the notice pay claim. It found that the claim was not presented in time, that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented it in time, and that the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider that claim.
The Tribunal then found that the Claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to redundancy pay. It recorded a gross weekly wage of £400 and accepted that the Claimant was aged 38 and had completed 5 years of service on the effective date of termination.
Applying a multiplier of 5 to the weekly wage of £400, the Tribunal calculated redundancy pay at £2,000 and ordered the Respondent to pay that sum. No separate award was made for the notice pay claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim for failure to pay notice pay was presented out of time. The Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented the claim in time and held that it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to redundancy pay. It calculated the award using a gross weekly wage of £400, age 38, and 5 years' service, applying a multiplier of 5 to reach £2,000. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- across all upheld claims
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.