Case 3300151/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Dickens v Total Home Delivery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300151/2025
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Dickens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Gordon Walker issued a Rule 22 judgment after the respondent, Total Home Delivery Limited, did not present a response to the claim. The claimant provided further information by correspondence to the Tribunal, on the basis of which the judge determined that a decision on the redundancy payment claim could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024.
The Tribunal found the claim for a redundancy payment under section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well founded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a redundancy payment of £2,100, calculated in accordance with section 162 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, within 14 days.
The judgment is brief and does not address any other heads of claim, remedy components, or further reasoning beyond the statutory basis for the redundancy payment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 22 judgment under Employment Tribunal Rules 2024; respondent did not present a response. Claim well founded under section 135 ERA 1996; payment calculated under section 162 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,100
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 135
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 162
- rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
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.