Resolve PHB Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant was made redundant with immediate effect on 4 April 2025 without prior warning or consultation. He was not paid redundancy or notice pay and was incorrectly advised by the respondent that he needed a CA number before making a tribunal claim. The tribunal allowed the claim to proceed out of time as it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it within the statutory deadline, and awarded him statutory redundancy pay and notice pay totalling £3,780.

The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim within the statutory three-month deadline because he was unaware of his employment rights at the time of dismissal and was misinformed by the respondent that he required a CA number before taking any action. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded on the undefended basis, and the claimant was entitled to statutory redundancy pay of £2,100 and notice pay of £1,680, with no further compensation for wage loss as his new employment provided higher remuneration.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether claim presented out of time was reasonably practicable
• •Whether dismissal was unfair
• •Appropriate remedy for unfair dismissal

ETZ4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001854/2025 Hearing held by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on 2 April 2026 Employment Judge M A Macleod Mr G Rew Claimant In person Resolve PHB Ltd Respondent Not present and not represented JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal succeeds, and that the respondent is ordered to pay to him the sum of Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Pounds (£3,780) by way of statutory redundancy pay and statutory notice pay, in compensation. REASONS 1. The claimant presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal on 29 July 2025 in which he complained that he had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent. 2. No ET3 was received from the respondent. 3. A Hearing was listed to take place on 2 April 2026 by Cloud Video Platform. The claimant appeared on his own behalf. 8001854/2025 Page 2 4. The respondent did not attend nor were they represented. The claim was therefore undefended. 5. I heard brief evidence from the claimant. 6. Based on the evidence led and the circumstances set out in the claimant’s claim, I have reached the following decision. Discussion and Decision 7. The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on 6 January 2022. 8. On 4 April 2025, the claimant and his colleagues attended the respondent’s workplace. The claimant was Lead Engineer. He had received notification the night before that he should attend the office early, but was given no indication or information as to what would be discussed. 9. There the claimant and his colleagues were informed that they were all being made redundant with immediate effect, by Stuart Kerr, their manager. He advised them that the business could not afford to continue to trade and had to close immediately. 10. …