Case 1805034/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Colilles (Claimant’s daughter) For the v Burgers & More (Harrogate) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805034/2021
- Decision date
- 7 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Colilles (Claimant’s daughter) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined on the papers under Rule 21 after the respondent did not attend. Employment Judge Davies considered a claim by Mr P Colilles for a redundancy payment in respect of Burgers & More (Harrogate) Ltd, heard by CVP on 22 November 2021 and sent to the parties on 7 December 2021.
The tribunal found, for the purposes of section 164(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, that it was just and equitable for the claimant to receive a redundancy payment and that the claim had been made within the period of twelve months beginning with the termination of his employment. The judgment therefore upheld the redundancy payment claim.
The tribunal awarded the claimant a redundancy payment of £2,652.90. No separate award components were set out in the judgment beyond that single sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found it was just and equitable for the claimant to receive a redundancy payment under s.164(2) ERA 1996 and that the claim was presented within 12 months of termination. | Upheld | — | £2,653 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,653
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.164(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.