Case 1405359/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T. Ledwitch (lay representative) v Mr S. Marcus (managing director) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405359/2020
- Decision date
- 15 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T. Ledwitch (lay representative)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Exeter by video, Employment Judge Smail found on 7 July 2021 that Mr J. Williams had been procedurally unfairly dismissed by Enlightened Lighting Ltd. The judgment records that no compensation for unfair dismissal was ordered because the basic award was cancelled out by the redundancy payment already made and the tribunal found that no financial losses flowed.
The tribunal also upheld the claim relating to notice pay. It ordered the respondent to pay the shortfall of the notice payment in the sum of £267.82 within 14 days. The judgment does not break out a separate monetary award for the unfair dismissal claim, and the total award recorded by the extraction is therefore the notice payment shortfall only.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that Mr J. Williams was procedurally unfairly dismissed. No compensation for unfair dismissal was ordered because the basic award was cancelled out by the redundancy payment already made and the tribunal found that no financial losses flowed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the shortfall of the notice payment in the sum of £267.82 within 14 days. | Upheld | — | £268 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £268
- 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.