Case 1602242/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ford v Church Homes Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1602242/2019
- Decision date
- 5 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Ford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent stated in its response form that it did not defend the claim and confirmed by telephone on 4 February 2020 that it did not intend to attend the hearing. Employment Judge Harfield therefore proceeded in the respondent's absence under rule 47. The hearing took place in Cardiff on 5 February 2020 and the judgment was given by the judge sitting alone.
The tribunal found that the complaint of failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment was well founded and awarded Mr D Ford £13,387.50. It also found that the complaint of failure to pay notice pay was well founded and awarded £600 gross after deductions for mitigation.
A further complaint of breach of contract for failure to pay wages due was also found well founded, with a gross award of £3,314.65. Other than the statutory redundancy payment, the sums were awarded on a gross basis and the claimant was to account for any tax and employee national insurance contributions due. The written record states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons were not provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Complaint of failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment was found well founded. | Upheld | — | £13,388 |
| Breach of contract | Complaint of failure to pay notice pay was found well founded; the tribunal awarded £600 gross after deductions for mitigation. | Upheld | — | £600 |
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract for failure to pay wages due was found well founded. | Upheld | — | £3,315 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,302
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47
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.