Case 6010155/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Amos v Medway Soft Drinks Limited (in CVL) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010155/2024
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Amos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the hearing in the absence of both parties under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024. It recorded that the respondent was in liquidation and unlikely to attend, and that the claimant had attempted to attend but had technical difficulties, so dismissal under the rule was not appropriate.
The only claim before the tribunal was for redundancy pay. The tribunal said there was no discretion as to the award because it was a statutory calculation using only the information available from the claim form.
It found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 26 February 2024. At that date he was 57 years old, had 15 complete years of service, and was paid £285 per week.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,412.50, and stated that this was the total amount the respondent must pay.
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 on 26 February 2024 and, using the information in the claim form, calculated a statutory redundancy payment based on 15 complete years' service, age 57, and weekly pay of £285. | Upheld | — | £6,413 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,413
- 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.