Case 2415257/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v E8 Solutions Group Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415257/2020
- Decision date
- 14 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant’s complaint for an unpaid redundancy payment. Employment Judge Johnson found that the claimant had been continuously employed by the respondent for less than two years at the date his employment ended, so he did not qualify for a redundancy payment under section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant’s complaint of unpaid wages succeeded. The tribunal ordered E8 Solutions Group Limited to pay the claimant £760.12. The written record also included an interest notice stating that sums payable under the judgment would carry interest if unpaid after 42 days from the relevant judgment day, at the stipulated rate of 8%, but no separate interest amount was specified in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant had been continuously employed for less than two years ending with the termination date, so no redundancy payment was due under section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unpaid wages succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay £760.12. | Upheld | — | £760 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £760
- across all upheld claims
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.