Case 1600195/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Walsh v Acerchem UK Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600195/2019
- Decision date
- 11 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans
- Venue
- Swansea
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Walsh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe employment judge, sitting alone at Swansea, heard evidence from Mr Walsh and considered the documentary evidence and the respondent’s written submissions. The judgment records that Mr Walsh was an employee of Acerchem UK Limited from 3 January 2011 and that he was unfairly dismissed. It also records that the manner of dismissal amounted to a fundamental breach of contract.
The tribunal upheld a breach of contract claim and ordered Acerchem UK Limited to pay £12,458.05 for failure to pay notice pay / provide notice of dismissal. It also upheld the unfair dismissal claim and ordered £11,106.65 in respect of that claim. The judgment records a total amount owed of £23,564.70, as set out in the claimant’s Schedule of Loss.
The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 were found not to apply. The extracted text states that the dismissal occurred on 19 November 2019, which appears inconsistent with the hearing and judgment dates in the same extract; that date has been recorded as it appears in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered payment for breach of contract, described as failure to pay notice pay / provide notice of dismissal. | Upheld | — | £12,458 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that Mr Walsh was unfairly dismissed. The extracted text does not split this sum into basic and compensatory awards. | Upheld | — | £11,107 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £23,565
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £11,107
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.