Case 1601167/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Bennett v D.P. Dennehy & Son Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601167/2020
- Decision date
- 13 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Havard Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William Bennett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims for notice pay, redundancy payment and unpaid wages had been paid by the respondent. Those claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The unfair dismissal claim was found well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal further found that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within two weeks of the dismissal, which limited the award to a net compensatory award of £554.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay. The judgment records that this claim had been paid by the respondent and was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim for redundancy payment. The judgment records that this claim had been paid by the respondent and was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages. The judgment records that this claim had been paid by the respondent and was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within two weeks of the dismissal, so compensation was limited to a net compensatory award of £554. | Upheld | — | £554 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £554
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £554
- 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.
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.