Case 3311368/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Riverside Rooms Catering Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311368/2023
- Decision date
- 28 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Luke Foster, was employed by Riverside Rooms Catering Company Limited from 14 October 2019 until 19 May 2023, when he was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The claim was presented on 3 October 2023 after ACAS Early Conciliation between 27 and 29 September 2023. The proceedings were re-served twice on the respondent, and no response had been entered.
The tribunal explained that the only claim in time was the redundancy payment claim. The claimant said he had an issue going back to lockdown about holiday pay, but the judgment records that those details were not in the claim form and that any such claim would in any event have been well out of time. The tribunal therefore recorded that it did not have jurisdiction to determine any other monetary claims because they had been presented outside the statutory time limit.
On the redundancy claim, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,200 in respect of a redundancy payment. The judgment also records that the respondent remained active with a proposal to strike off, but was not yet in insolvency, so the claimant was directed to contact the insolvency practitioner and the Insolvency Service if payment proved difficult.
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 ordered payment of a £1,200 redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,200
- 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.