Case 1602011/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Benjamin Harris v Red Storm Fashion Agency Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1602011/2019
- Decision date
- 21 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Benjamin Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRegional Employment Judge Clarke determined the claim on the papers because no ET3 response form had been presented by the respondent and there was sufficient material to make a proper determination under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment was a liability-only decision dated 16 December 2019 and sent to the parties on 21 January 2020.
The tribunal upheld Mr Benjamin Harris's claim of unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also upheld his claim for detriment for making protected disclosures under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal further upheld the breach of contract claim, recording that it concerned both inadequate notice and a failure to pay employer pension contributions. The judgment did not assess remedy at this stage.
The matter was listed to proceed to a remedy hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone, with a time estimate of one day.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. Liability only judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Upheld as detriment for making protected disclosures under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. Liability only judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Upheld in respect of inadequate notice and failure to pay employer pension contributions. Liability only judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
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.