Case 2411079/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ian Laird v C & A Cerdyn Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2411079/2019
- Decision date
- 24 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ian Laird
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningUnder Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the respondent confirmed that the claimant's claims were not defended, and judgment was therefore entered in favour of Mr Ian Laird. The tribunal held that the claim for breach of contract relating to unpaid notice pay was well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also held that the statutory redundancy payment claim was well founded and succeeded. The notice pay award was £4,902.54, calculated as 12 weeks' gross notice pay at £456.41 per week less £574.38 Jobseeker's Allowance received during the relevant period. The redundancy payment was £5,476.92, calculated using 12 years' continuous service, all service under the age of 41, and a gross weekly pay of £456.41.
The accompanying interest notice stated that sums unpaid within 14 days of the written judgment being sent would attract interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, with the relevant decision day given as 24 January 2020 and the stipulated rate as 8%. No separate interest sum was calculated in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Unpaid notice pay. The award was stated to be 12 weeks' gross notice pay at £456.41 per week, less £574.38 Jobseeker's Allowance received during the relevant period. | Upheld | — | £4,903 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal said the calculation used 12 years' continuous service as at dismissal, all service under age 41, and gross weekly pay of £456.41. | Upheld | — | £5,477 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,379
- across all upheld claims
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.