Case 1600879/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A R Parry v Lex Machinery Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600879/2022
- Decision date
- 19 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A R Parry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals on 29 July 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the judgment records that Mr A R Parry was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,528.00. It also records that he was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, with damages payable by Lex Machinery Ltd in the sum of £5,063.00 gross.
The judgment further records that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £632.88 gross. The total sum ordered was £12,223.88.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,528.00. | Upheld | — | £6,528 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and that the respondent must pay damages of £5,063.00 gross. | Upheld | — | £5,063 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay £632.88 gross. | Upheld | — | £633 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,224
- 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.