Case 1403631/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Lee Banks v AND D R Groundworks Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403631/2019
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Lee Banks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in chambers at Plymouth on 29 October 2019 and proceeded under Rule 21 because the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented. In that default judgment, the tribunal recorded that Mr Lee Banks had been unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. In addition, his breach of contract claim succeeded in respect of notice pay, and his claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay also succeeded.
The judgment did not set out any monetary award. It stated that the appropriate remedy would be determined at a further hearing, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 31 October 2019.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment under Rule 21 because no valid response was presented. Remedy was not quantified in this judgment and was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. Remedy was not quantified in this judgment and was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim succeeded in respect of notice pay. No monetary figure was set in this judgment; remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay succeeded. No monetary figure was set in this judgment; remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.