Case 6022318/2024 · Employment Tribunal
O Stacey v Next gen luxury homes — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022318/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
O Stacey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered a complaint for redundancy payment brought by O Stacey against Next gen luxury homes. By letter dated 4 February 2025, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on whether the complaint should be struck out because the claimant did not have the requisite length of service required for a redundancy payment claim under section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not comply with that order and did not provide representations or request a hearing.
Because no response was received to the order, the Tribunal struck out the complaint of redundancy payment. No monetary award was made and the judgment records only the strike-out outcome.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Tribunal struck out the redundancy payment complaint after the claimant did not comply with the order dated 4 February 2025. The letter of 4 February 2025 had given the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out because the claimant did not appear to have the requisite length of service under s155 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s155 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.