Case 1405441/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Spaul v Classic Country Pubs Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1405441/2019
- Decision date
- 15 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Spaul
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Midgley found for the claimant, Mr L Spaul, against Classic Country Pubs Limited on the pleaded claims. The tribunal found that Mr Spaul was dismissed by reason of redundancy, but that the dismissal was unfair because no process was followed.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract in respect of notice. In addition, it held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement.
No remedy figure was set in the judgment itself. The tribunal recorded that the remedy due to the claimant would be determined after written clarification from the claimant, and that a further notice would indicate whether that determination could be made on the papers or whether a remedies hearing would be required.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the dismissal was unfair because no process was followed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | 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.