Case 2403150/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Holden v Kirkham and Howarth Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2403150/2020
- Decision date
- 10 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Holden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the respondent stated that it did not dispute the claimant's claim. The tribunal therefore held that Mr A Holden's claim for a redundancy payment was well founded and succeeded.
The judgment states that Mr Holden was employed from 1 June 1996 until he was dismissed on 31 December 2019, when he was 50 years old. His weekly gross wage was £498.17. Although he had more than 20 years of service, statutory redundancy payments are capped at 20 years for the purposes of the calculation.
On that basis, the tribunal calculated the redundancy entitlement as 24.5 x £498.17, producing an award of £12,205.17, which the respondent was ordered to pay. The judgment also includes the standard tribunal notice on interest, but it does not set out any separate interest amount in the award itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent did not dispute the claim. The tribunal found the claimant's redundancy payment claim well-founded and ordered payment of the redundancy entitlement calculated on 24.5 weeks at a weekly gross wage of £498.17. | Upheld | — | £12,205 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,205
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.