Case 3205997/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Simon Morgan Dean Taylor v The Sugar Shop Sugaring Company Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205997/2022
- Decision date
- 30 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Simon Morgan Dean Taylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Simon Morgan Dean Taylor had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. On that basis, it held that he was entitled to a redundancy payment from The Sugar Shop Sugaring Company Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation). The judgment records the amount as £3,324.12 gross, calculated on the basis of 6 weeks at a gross weekly pay figure of £554.02.
The tribunal also recorded that, on 12 July 2023, the Insolvency Service had paid the claimant £552.30 by way of a statutory redundancy payment. It directed that credit should be given for that amount in relation to any further payment made to the claimant in respect of the statutory redundancy payment awarded in paragraph 1 of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a gross redundancy payment of £3,324.12, calculated as 6 weeks x £554.02 gross weekly pay. It also recorded that the Insolvency Service had paid £552.30 on 12 July 2023 and directed that credit be given for that sum against any further payment in relation to the statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £3,324 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,324
- across all upheld claims
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.