Case 2402483/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Woodvine v Working Men’s Club & Institute Union Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402483/2022
- Decision date
- 13 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cline
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Woodvine
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cline sitting alone heard the matter by CVP in Manchester on 10 February 2023. The claimant did not attend but had confirmed in writing that he was content for the case to proceed in his absence on the documentation already provided. The tribunal held that the respondent was the claimant's employer and that it was therefore liable to pay a redundancy payment under Chapter V of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment records that the claimant had already received two relevant payments from the respondent totalling £6,300.25 net, said to be £3,000 on 5 December 2021 and £2,300.25 on 14 January 2022, and that any redundancy payment due on the claimant's pleaded case was less than that sum. Exercising the discretion in section 163(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal ordered that the respondent was not liable to make any further payments in respect of redundancy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the respondent was liable to pay the claimant a redundancy payment under Chapter V of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It recorded that the claimant had already received two relevant payments totalling £6,300.25 net and exercised the discretion in section 163(5) to order that the respondent was not liable for any further payments in respect of redundancy. The exact redundancy amount due is not stated separately in the extract. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Chapter V of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.163(5) Employment Rights Act 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.