Case 6020526/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Soper v Rogers & Jones Architects Limited (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020526/2024
- Decision date
- 24 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elizabeth Gibson
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Soper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimant was an employee of the First Respondent, which was in creditors voluntary liquidation and insolvent within the meaning of s166(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant was made redundant on 03 January 2024, with formal confirmation of the redundancy given on 20 September 2024.
The Tribunal accepted the redundancy pay claim and granted an extension of time for bringing it, finding it just and equitable that the Claimant should receive a redundancy payment given the timing of formal notification. It determined that the Claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of GBP 3,722.24 and ordered the Second Respondent to pay that sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Tribunal determined under s163 ERA 1996 that the Claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment after granting an extension of time for the claim. | Upheld | — | £3,722 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,722
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s166(5) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s164(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s164(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s163 Employment Rights Act 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.