Case 2502363/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Andrew Goodwin v Red Amber Archer Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502363/2023
- Decision date
- 12 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Andrew Goodwin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented by Red Amber Archer Limited, so the claim was determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Andrew Goodwin had presented a claim form on 17 October 2022 seeking a statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal accepted the information provided and found that he had been employed as a barman and that the closure of his place of work gave rise to a redundancy situation.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the claim was brought in time. It therefore held that the claim for a redundancy payment was well-founded and succeeded.
The judgment ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £1,941.50 gross. In the reasons, the tribunal recorded that, had the Claimant been given his minimum statutory notice, he would have been employed for a period of 10 complete years and set out a calculation of 11 weeks x £176 = £1,936, which does not exactly match the sum in the operative order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment under rule 21 held that the claim for a statutory redundancy payment was well-founded and ordered the Respondent to pay £1,941.50 gross. In the reasons, the tribunal also stated that the redundancy pay calculation was 11 weeks x £176 = £1,936, so the operative order and the worked calculation do not match exactly. | Upheld | — | £1,942 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,942
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.