Case 1301002/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Featham v Industrial Coating Services Ltd (In Adminstration) and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301002/2022
- Decision date
- 8 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claim for a protective award had been dealt with in a separate judgment, so it did not determine that issue in this judgment.
For Mr Featham, the tribunal found the complaint about non-payment of notice pay well founded and ordered the First Respondent to pay £920.54 gross. It also found the breach of contract complaint about non-payment of a bonus well founded and ordered the First Respondent to pay £4,800 gross as damages for breach of contract.
No separate order was made against the Second Respondent. The judgment stated that, because of the First Respondent's insolvency, sums payable as notice pay may be treated as within the scope of the Second Respondent's obligations under section 184 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint as to non-payment of notice pay, found well founded, with the sum ordered gross in respect of notice pay. | Upheld | — | £921 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a breach of contract complaint in respect of non-payment of a bonus, found well founded, with damages ordered gross. | Upheld | — | £4,800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,721
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 184
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.