Case 2406547/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Holmes v Fibresafe Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2406547/2019
- Decision date
- 19 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Holmes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's reference to determine entitlement to a redundancy payment. It found that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for a right to a redundancy payment, and that Mr Holmes had been employed by Fibresafe Ltd for less than two years.
Because that statutory condition was not met, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to a redundancy payment. By letter dated 25 July 2019, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on whether this part of the claim should be struck out, but he did not reply.
Accordingly, the reference to determine entitlement to a redundancy payment was struck out. The judgment expressly 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 held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996. The claimant did not reply to the tribunal's letter inviting written representations or a request for a hearing, and the reference to determine entitlement to a redundancy payment was struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 155 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.