Case 2300190/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M T R Rippon v Sprint Trading Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300190/2021
- Decision date
- 1 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M T R Rippon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the Claimant's claim for notice pay, finding that he was entitled to four months' notice. The First Respondent was ordered to pay £3,997.07 gross, after accounting for a £656.77 payment already made by the Second Respondent under section 182 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim for a protective award under section 189 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim was for notice pay. The judgment states total compensation for the notice pay claim would have been £4,653.84, but £656.77 had already been paid by the Second Respondent under s.182 Employment Rights Act 1996, leaving £3,997.07 ordered against the First Respondent. | Upheld | — | £3,997 |
| Trade union | The claim for a protective award under s.189 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,997
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.182 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.189 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.