Mr A Kingsland v Zander Hair Design Ltd: 6021671/2024
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Rule 22 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 as amended in 2024 The claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment is well founded. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £11,550.00REASONS
[1]This case was listed for a final hearing on 4 March 2025. Unfortunately, there were widespread IT issues being experienced with CVP hearings across the whole Tribunal Service, so the case could not proceed.[2]However, Employment Judge Martin determined, from reviewing the case file, that she could deal with the case on paper. The claimant had provided details of his age, length of service and rate of pay which was capped at the statutory rate. Therefore, the claimant had provided sufficient evidence for a Rule 22 Judgement to be issued in this case.[3]The respondent had not filed a Response in time. The respondent was seeking an extension of time to file a Response but stated in their draft response that they were not contesting the claim for a redundancy payment and were not intending to attend the hearing on 4 March 2025.[4]The claimant had asked to amend his claim to bring a claim for additional monies which appeared to be a potential claim for unfair dismissal. The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 26 February 2025 regarding that proposed application as it was unclear what the claimant was seeking. The Tribunal gave the claimant 7 days to respond with 4.17 Rule 21 judgment – universal template. September 2017 Case No: 6021671/2024 an application for leave to amend. No response was received from the claimant, so the Tribunal concluded the claimant was not pursing any application for leave to amend his claim to add a claim of unfair dismissal. Therefore, the only claim before this Tribunal was the claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment which has been determined in the claimant’s favour.