Case 1402289/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Lockwood v A&P Bathrooms Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402289/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Lockwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Lockwood brought claims against A&P Bathrooms Limited for unfair dismissal and for failure to pay statutory redundancy pay. The case was heard remotely at Southampton on 7 June 2021 before Employment Judge David Hughes. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not appear. The tribunal held that both claims were well founded and succeeded.
The written judgment orders the respondent to pay £7,127.96 and a further £1,680 for failure to comply with its duty under s38 of the Employment Act 2002. It also records that the £6,287.96 total stated orally when reasons were given was a mathematical error and was corrected. The written decision does not set out a separate apportionment of the monetary awards between the two successful claims, so the aggregate award is taken from the two sums stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. The written judgment does not allocate a separate monetary figure to this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held the claim for failure to pay statutory redundancy pay was well founded and succeeded. The written judgment states awards of £7,127.96 and a further £1,680, but does not split the sums between the successful claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,808
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s38 Employment Act 2002
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.