Case 2412726/2023 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr D Whitehead, Commercial Director — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412726/2023
- Decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing by video on 6 June 2024 before Employment Judge Kenward, the tribunal recorded four complaints: redundancy payment, unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay. The only claim that succeeded was the redundancy payment complaint, which the tribunal found was well founded.
The tribunal ordered Multi Utility UK Limited to pay the Claimant £4,822.50 within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties. The written record also includes the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest would be payable if the sum was not paid within 14 days, with the relevant decision day as 4 September 2024 and a stipulated rate of 8% per annum.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed as out of time. The complaint as to notice pay was also dismissed as out of time. The holiday pay complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy payment claim well founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £4,822.50 within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties. | Upheld | — | £4,823 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint as to notice pay was dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,823
- 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.