Case 2402719/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Keith Gilbert v Roofing Insulation Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402719/2022
- Decision date
- 11 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Keith Gilbert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Liverpool on 6 July 2022 before Employment Judge Aspinall, with the claimant represented by Miss Hardy and the respondent represented by its director, Mr Howarth. The judgment records one claim only: a statutory redundancy payment claim by Mr Keith Gilbert against Roofing Insulation Services Limited.
The tribunal upheld the claim. It stated that the respondent did not defend the complaint and agreed the amount awarded. The sum awarded for the statutory redundancy payment was £7,888.00.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. The judgment therefore records the outcome and the agreed award, but not a fuller written analysis of the underlying redundancy issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim for a statutory redundancy payment succeeded. The respondent did not defend the complaint and agreed the amount awarded of £7,888.00. | Upheld | — | £7,888 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,888
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.