Case 1805260/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Randall v Resindrives.Co.Uk Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805260/2019
- Decision date
- 11 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Randall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent confirmed that it did not resist the claimant’s claims. The tribunal therefore proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, recording that there was sufficient material before the judge to enable a proper determination to be made.
On that basis, the tribunal upheld two claims: breach of contract for unpaid notice pay in the net sum of £638.00, and statutory redundancy pay in the sum of £769.22. No other claims or disputed issues are recorded in the judgment.
The judgment does not set out any contested findings of fact or legal analysis beyond the Rule 21 disposal. The total award recorded from the two upheld claims is £1,407.22.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld the unpaid notice pay claim in the net sum of £638.00 after the respondent confirmed it did not resist the claim and the judge found there was sufficient material to determine it under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £638 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal upheld the statutory redundancy pay claim in the sum of £769.22 after the respondent confirmed it did not resist the claim and the judge found there was sufficient material to determine it under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | £769 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,407
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.