Case 1401023/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Nicholson (SARC Case Worker) For the first v Pub Solutions (South West) Ltd and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401023/2018
- Decision date
- 12 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J Nicholson (SARC Case Worker) For the first
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Andrew Sutherland was the employer at the material time, so the claims against Pub Solutions (South West) Ltd were dismissed. The second respondent did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal then found, pursuant to rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, that the claims against Mr Sutherland were well founded: breach of contract for statutory notice pay, failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment, unfair dismissal, and unauthorised deduction of wages.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered £3,240.00 for statutory notice pay, £8,817.16 for the statutory redundancy payment, and £1,212.00 for unauthorised deductions from wages relating to the claimant's final eight weeks' pay. The tribunal recorded that, although unfair dismissal was upheld, no further sums were awarded in compensation. The total monetary award on the face of the judgment is £13,269.16.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Statutory notice pay. | Upheld | — | £3,240 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £8,817 |
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld, but the tribunal awarded no further sums in compensation. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions relating to the claimant's final 8 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,212 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,269
- 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.