Case 2213361/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Wheeler v Matchstick Associates Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2213361/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shukla
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Wheeler
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Wheeler brought a breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay and a redundancy payment claim against Matchstick Associates Ltd (in voluntary liquidation). The case was heard at London Central by CVP on 10 January 2024 before Employment Judge Shukla sitting alone.
The tribunal dismissed the breach of contract complaint. It found that the notice pay complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit and recorded that it was reasonably practicable to do so. On that basis, the breach of contract claim was dismissed.
The tribunal upheld the redundancy payment claim. Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, it determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,720. No separate breakdown of compensation beyond that redundancy payment was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint in relation to notice pay was found not to have been presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal recorded that it was reasonably practicable to do so, and dismissed the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,720. | Upheld | — | £2,720 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,720
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.