Case 3202477/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Shane Lawson v GServe Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202477/2019
- Decision date
- 27 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shane Lawson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent did not file an ET3 within the time limit, so the tribunal dealt with the matter under Rule 21 after considering the ET1 and the information given at a telephone preliminary hearing on 27 April 2020. The only claim determined in the judgment was the Claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment under section 165 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the redundancy payment claim was well founded and calculated the award at £2,362.50. It recorded that the dismissal date was 31 May 2019, that the statutory cap on a week’s pay for redundancy purposes was £525, that the Claimant’s gross weekly pay exceeded that cap, that he was over 41 throughout his employment, and that he had three full continuous years of service. On that basis, the tribunal calculated the award as 3 x 1.5 x £525.
The judgment states that the recoupment regulations do not apply to the award. It also states that the Claimant’s claims for notice pay and holiday pay are not affected by the judgment, so those claims were not determined by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim upheld under section 165 ERA 1996 on a Rule 21 judgment after the Respondent failed to file an ET3. The tribunal ordered payment of £2,362.50. | Upheld | — | £2,363 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,363
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 165 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 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.