Case 3324414/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person by video v Walverden Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3324414/2019
- Decision date
- 1 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person by video
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 1 July 2020, Employment Judge Smail heard the claims of Mr P Kovalcik and Mrs E Kovalcikova against Walverden Ltd. The respondent did not appear. The tribunal found the claims to redundancy and notice payments well-founded.
Mr Kovalcik was awarded a redundancy payment of £4,499.95, calculated as 13 x £346.15 gross, and a notice payment of £3,530.76, calculated as 12 x £249.23 net. Mrs Kovalcikova was awarded a redundancy payment of £3,900, calculated as 13 x £300 gross, and a notice payment of £3,176.28, calculated as 12 x £264.69 net. The total payable to Mr Kovalcik was £8,030.71 and the total payable to Mrs Kovalcikova was £7,076.28.
For the redundancy claims, the tribunal referred to section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as the statutory basis for a redundancy payment where employment ends by reason of redundancy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Mr Kovalcik: redundancy payment of £4,499.95, calculated as 13 x £346.15 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,500 |
| Breach of contract | Mr Kovalcik: notice payment of £3,530.76, calculated as 12 x £249.23 net. | Upheld | — | £3,531 |
| Redundancy | Mrs Kovalcikova: redundancy payment of £3,900, calculated as 13 x £300 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,900 |
| Breach of contract | Mrs Kovalcikova: notice payment of £3,176.28, calculated as 12 x £264.69 net. | Upheld | — | £3,176 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,107
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.135 ERA 1996
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.