Case 3312545/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Hothi v Swan and Dale LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312545/2021
- Decision date
- 20 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Hothi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent, Swan and Dale LLP, did not present a response to the claim. Employment Judge Hawksworth therefore entered judgment on the papers. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr Y Hothi, was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that his statutory redundancy payment claim succeeded.
The tribunal awarded £5,649 as the statutory redundancy payment and stated that the claim had been presented within the time limit in section 164 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate enhancement, interest, or other monetary component is recorded in the judgment.
The tribunal also dealt with a contractual lump sum payment claim. It held that it had no jurisdiction to consider that claim because it was presented after the expiry of the three-month time limit for breach of contract claims under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. The judgment therefore leaves the contractual claim out of the award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £5,649. It recorded that the claim was presented within the time limit in section 164 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £5,649 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's claim for a contractual lump sum payment because it was presented after the expiry of the three-month time limit for breach of contract claims in the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,649
- 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.