Case 2403503/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Russell v Styles & Wood Ltd (In Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2403503/2020
- Decision date
- 19 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Russell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Russell, brought a complaint that Styles & Wood Limited (in administration) failed to make a redundancy payment. Employment Judge Phil Allen held that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before a claimant can bring such a complaint, and found that Mr Russell had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint that the respondent failed to make a redundancy payment was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the complaint that the respondent failed to make a redundancy payment because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore was not entitled to bring such a complaint under section 155 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.155 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.