Case 1600345/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Evans v Stores 4 Floors Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600345/2022
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Brace therefore decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, on the papers.
The tribunal found that Mr J Evans had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,505.00. It also found that Stores 4 Floors Ltd had failed to pay his holiday entitlement, awarding £1,685.00, and that the respondent had dismissed him in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding damages of £670.62. The total payable was £5,860.62.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The extracted text states that the claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals on 23 March 2023, which is inconsistent with the judgment date of 12 January 2023; the award figure is otherwise clear. | Upheld | — | £3,505 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,685 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £671 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,861
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.