Case 6006178/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Cooke v Inox Technical Lighting Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006178/2025
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Cooke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr N Cooke, presented his claim in the London South Employment Tribunal on 24 February 2025. The respondent, Inox Technical Lighting Ltd, failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that Mr Cooke had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. It recorded that he had worked for the respondent for 2 years, that his weekly pay was £673.07, and that he was 62 years old when made redundant.
Using the age-related redundancy formula referred to in the judgment, the tribunal calculated entitlement at 1.5 weeks' pay for each year worked and assessed the redundancy payment at £2,019.24. The judgment states that the respondent must pay Mr Cooke £2,019.24 in total and that the hearing listed for 17 June 2025 was cancelled.
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 was entitled to a redundancy payment. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so a determination was made under rule 22. | Upheld | — | £2,019 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,019
- 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.