Case 2408754/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Ellison v 21 Hundred Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408754/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Ellison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anderson, sitting in Manchester via CVP, held that Mr C Ellison was unfairly dismissed by 21 Hundred Limited (in voluntary liquidation). The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing on 12 January 2024 and that the written record was sent to the parties on 16 January 2024.
On remedy, the tribunal said no basic award was payable because the claimant had received a redundancy payment from the Secretary of State. It ordered the respondent to pay a compensatory award of £1,300. The annex states that the recoupment regulations apply, with a prescribed period of 12 June 2023 to 25 June 2023, a prescribed amount of £1,300, and an amount by which the prescribed element exceeds the monetary award of £0.00. The standard interest notice records the relevant decision day as 16 January 2024, the calculation day as 17 January 2024, and the stipulated interest rate as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,300 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,300
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,300
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.