Case 2401508/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M S Dickinson v Hayes Transport Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401508/2024
- Decision date
- 25 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M S Dickinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. On that basis, it found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract because he was not given notice or any payment in lieu of the notice period.
The tribunal awarded damages for breach of contract in the gross sum of £6,867.60, described as 12 weeks' statutory notice at £572.30 per week. It recorded that gross pay was used because the claimant was likely to have tax liability on the amount as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £12,876.75. That figure was calculated as 1.5 weeks' pay for every complete year of service when the claimant was aged 41 or older, using 15 full years of service at £572.30 per week. The respondent was ordered to pay the total sum of £19,744.35, and the hearing listed for 4 October 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £6,868 |
| Redundancy | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | £12,877 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,744
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.