Case 1600494/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P D Ward v Benjamin’s Interiors Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600494/2020
- Decision date
- 22 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P D Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that no ET3 response form had been received from Benjamin’s Interiors Ltd. Employment Judge Beard said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination, and he acted under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment was expressly limited to liability only.
On that basis, the tribunal upheld the claimant’s claims for notice pay/breach of contract, holiday pay, and failure to provide written particulars of employment. The judgment does not set out any monetary award, and it records no remedy assessment because the decision was confined to liability.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment upheld the claim described as 'Notice pay/breach of contract' on a liability-only basis under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment upheld the holiday pay claim on a liability-only basis under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment upheld the claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment. No specific taxonomy category fits this claim in the locked enum. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal’s 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.