Case 2200254/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr Anil Thapen, Director (by video) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200254/2022
- Decision date
- 30 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Representations
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Steven Boyle had been dismissed by reason of redundancy on 30 September 2021 and that, under section 163(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £12,521.70. The respondent did not dispute that the sum was owing.
The respondent said it was unable to pay because the business had ceased trading on 30 September 2021 after running out of funds, partly because of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The tribunal recorded that a payment of £2,500 had already been made, so the remaining unpaid balance was £10,021.70.
The tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay Mr Boyle £10,021.70 as unpaid redundancy pay. It also noted that the respondent had filed a notice with Companies House to strike the company off, but that this application had been suspended following an objection from HMRC, and that the claimant intended to apply to the Secretary of State under section 166(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held under section 163(1) ERA 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £12,521.70; the respondent was ordered to pay the unpaid balance of £10,021.70 after £2,500 had already been paid. | Upheld | — | £10,022 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,022
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 163(1) ERA 1996
- section 166(1)(a) ERA 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.