Case 3314957/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Kennard v Dolfin Tech Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314957/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Kennard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge therefore determined the claim, or part of it, on the papers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,469.50. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,512.90.
The total amount ordered in this judgment was £4,982.40. The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded, but the tribunal did not assess the remedy in this judgment; that issue was left to a later Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,469.50. | Upheld | — | £2,470 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,512.90. | Upheld | — | £2,513 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but the remedy was not determined in this judgment and was to be dealt with at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,982
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.