Case 2500703/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Rudd v Funky North East Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500703/2023
- Decision date
- 8 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Rudd
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a single redundancy payment issue in the claim by Mr S Rudd against Funky North East Limited (in voluntary liquidation). Employment Judge Jeram sat at Newcastle via CVP. The judgment records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Whitely, a former director.
The tribunal stated that, upon being satisfied in accordance with s.164(2) ERA 1996 that it was just and equitable for the claimant to receive a redundancy payment, it declared that he was entitled to such a payment. The calculation recorded in the judgment was 5.5 weeks x £1,314, giving a redundancy payment of £7,227.
The decision was given orally at the hearing and the written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No other claims, liability findings, or separate remedy components are recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal satisfied itself under s.164(2) ERA 1996 that it was just and equitable for the claimant to receive a redundancy payment. It declared entitlement to 5.5 weeks' pay at £1,314 per week, producing £7,227. | Upheld | — | £7,227 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,227
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.164(2) ERA 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.