Case 6001982/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Charles Nugent- Issitt v Chase Publishing Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001982/2025
- Decision date
- 9 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Charles Nugent- Issitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRegional Employment Judge Burgher heard the claim at East London Hearing Centre on 9 June 2025. The Respondent did not attend and had not presented an ET3 response. The Claimant appeared in person.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was a director and employee of the Respondent, employed from 1 November 2008 until 23 January 2024, amounting to 15 full years of continuous service. His salary was recorded as £758.35 per calendar month, equivalent to £175.00 gross per week. The Claimant was made redundant on 23 January 2024 and his claim for unpaid redundancy pay succeeded.
Given the Claimant's age at dismissal, the Tribunal held he was entitled to 17.5 weeks' redundancy pay. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the total sum of £3,062.50 (17.5 x £175.00).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Respondent did not present an ET3 response. Tribunal calculated 17.5 weeks x £175.00 gross weekly pay = £3,062.50. | Upheld | — | £3,063 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,063
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.