Case 2409191/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hall v East Float Logistics Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409191/2023
- Decision date
- 21 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dilks REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Hall appeared in person and East Float Logistics Limited did not attend or represent. The tribunal sat by CVP in Liverpool on 16 November 2023 and gave reasons orally. It first dealt with a breach of contract complaint about notice pay and dismissed it because the complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit. The extracted sentence on the time-limit point is not fully clear, but the judgment outcome was dismissal.
The tribunal then determined that, under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, Mr Hall was entitled to the balance of a redundancy payment in the sum of £5,210. That was the only monetary award made in the judgment. The written record also included the standard interest notice, stating the relevant decision day as 20 November 2023, the calculation day as 21 November 2023, and an interest rate of 8% per annum if unpaid after 14 days.
Finally, the tribunal recorded that it did not have jurisdiction in relation to payments to the claimant's Nest pension because those payments did not fall within the definition of 'wages'. No separate monetary figure was attached to that issue in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint related to notice pay. The judgment says it was not presented within the applicable time limit and then states 'It was reasonably practicable to do so' before dismissing the claim; the sentence is internally unclear in the extracted text, but the claim was dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found the claimant was entitled to the balance of a redundancy payment of £5,210. | Upheld | — | £5,210 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction in relation to the payments to the claimant's Nest pension because they did not fall within the definition of 'wages'. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,210
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- 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.