Case 3303875/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Humphries v Total Home Delivery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303875/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Humphries
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's name was amended to Total Home Delivery Limited. The respondent did not present a response, and the Tribunal determined the claims under rule 22 after considering further information provided by the claimant.
The Tribunal found the breach of contract claim for notice pay well founded because the claimant had a statutory notice period of 12 weeks and was not paid for that notice period. It ordered payment of GBP 7,800 net.
The Tribunal also found the redundancy payment claim well founded under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 135. It ordered payment of a redundancy payment of GBP 21,000, calculated in accordance with Employment Rights Act 1996 section 162.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim found well founded under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Upheld | — | £7,800 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment claim found well founded under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 135 and calculated under section 162. | Upheld | — | £21,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,800
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 135
- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 162
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.