Case 3204831/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Macdonald v KidsLoop — 2022
- Case reference
- 3204831/2022
- Decision date
- 28 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Macdonald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment. It held that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years’ employment before an employee has the right to a redundancy payment, and found that Mr C Macdonald had been employed by KidsLoop for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant did not have the right to a redundancy payment. It also recorded that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided. The redundancy payment claim was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the claimant’s redundancy payment claim because section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years’ service for a redundancy payment, and the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.