Case 6021671/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Kingsland v Zander Hair Design Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021671/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Kingsland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe final hearing listed for 4 March 2025 could not proceed because of widespread CVP IT issues. Employment Judge Martin therefore determined the case on the papers under Rule 22. The claimant had provided details of his age, length of service and pay, which the judge said were sufficient for a Rule 22 judgment to be issued.
The respondent had not filed a Response in time. Although it sought an extension, its draft response said it was not contesting the redundancy payment claim and did not intend to attend the hearing. The claimant had also asked to amend his claim to seek additional monies, which appeared to be a potential unfair dismissal claim, but after the tribunal asked for clarification no response was received, so the judge concluded that no amendment application was being pursued.
The tribunal therefore treated the redundancy payment claim as the only claim before it and found it well founded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £11,550.00.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 22 judgment determined on the papers. The respondent had not filed a Response in time and said in its draft response that it was not contesting the redundancy payment. The tribunal found this was the only claim before it after the claimant did not pursue an application to amend to add unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £11,550 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,550
- 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.