Case 1602175/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Perry v Davies & Williams Building Contractors Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1602175/2019
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Perry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge Beard on 5 March 2020. The tribunal recorded that Mr J Perry had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded him damages of £3,436.80. The judgment also recorded that he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,625.60.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,145.60. The hearing listed for 26 March 2020 was cancelled. The judgment does not set out any separate findings beyond those monetary awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages of £3,436.80. | Upheld | — | £3,437 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,625.60. | Upheld | — | £4,626 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and orders payment of £1,145.60. | Upheld | — | £1,146 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,208
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.