Case 2301415/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Williams v Mr Richard King and 7 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301415/2023
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Date
Parties
9 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 1 February 2023. By email dated 9 June 2023, the respondent said it did not intend to defend the claimant's claim in relation to a failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment. The Employment Judge therefore made a determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that Mrs R Williams had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £13,418.50. The judgment records that the respondent must pay that amount in total.
The remainder of the claim had been withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The hearing listed for 14 August 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined the claim under Rule 21 after the respondent said by email dated 9 June 2023 that it did not intend to defend the failure-to-pay statutory redundancy payment claim. | Upheld | — | £13,419 |
| Other | The judgment states that the remainder of the claim was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52, but it does not identify the underlying cause of action. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,419
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Rule 52
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.