Case 1600871/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Davies v Penclawdd Shellfish Processing Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600871/2019
- Decision date
- 29 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent, Employment Judge Brace determined the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and was satisfied that there was sufficient material to make a proper determination. The judgment states that the claimant's claims were upheld on that basis.
The tribunal upheld a notice period claim and awarded £4,320.00. It also upheld a redundancy payment claim and awarded £5,220.00. The judgment does not separate the awards further or record any additional findings on liability beyond the default judgment basis.
The total award was £9,540.00. The judgment also states that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay, although no separate award under those headings is set out in the decision text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld the claim identified in the judgment as 'Notice Period' in the absence of an ET3 response form, acting under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Upheld | — | £4,320 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal upheld the redundancy payment claim in the absence of an ET3 response form, acting under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Upheld | — | £5,220 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,540
- 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.