Case 6021531/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J O’Hagan v Richter Associates (Bedford) Limited (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6021531/2025
- Decision date
- 12 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge SERR
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J O’Hagan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 22 default judgment heard by Judge Serr after the respondent (in creditors' voluntary liquidation, with the joint liquidators having indicated they would not take part) failed to present a valid response on time. The claimant was unable to produce P60/P45 payslips or a contract due to being locked out of the server but produced bank statements evidencing salary payments.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract regarding notice and ordered damages of £4,674 (3 weeks' notice under s.86 ERA 1996 at £1,558 gross weekly pay). The claimant was also dismissed by reason of redundancy and was awarded a redundancy payment of £3,150 (claimant aged 70 with 3 years' continuous service; £700 x 1.5 x 3). The holiday pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The total award is £7,824.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal/notice pay: 3 weeks' notice under s.86 ERA 1996 at £1,558 gross weekly pay. | Upheld | — | £4,674 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment: claimant aged 70 with 3 years' continuous service; £700 (capped weekly pay) x 1.5 x 3 = £3,150. | Upheld | — | £3,150 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,824
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.86 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.