Case 2403159/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Leopold v Redpro Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403159/2023
- Decision date
- 26 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Leopold
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the tribunal amended the respondent's name to Redpro Limited and dealt only with the claimant's entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal found that Mr M Leopold was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
Applying section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment in the sum of £8,565. No other claim types or remedies were recorded in the judgment.
The separate interest notice stated that interest would be payable only if the award remained unpaid after the relevant decision day, which was 26 May 2023, with the calculation day being 27 May 2023 and the stipulated rate 8% per annum. The judgment itself did not specify any separate interest amount.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal amended the respondent's name to Redpro Limited and determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,565. | Upheld | — | £8,565 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,565
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- s.163 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.