Case 1800306/2025 · Employment Tribunal
L Barnes v Certa Precision Engineering Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1800306/2025
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Barnes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningL Barnes presented the claim in the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 09 January 2025 against Certa Precision Engineering Limited. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Singh decided under rule 22 that a determination could properly be made on the claim, or part of it, without a contested response.
The tribunal held that the claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay), failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment, failure to pay holiday pay, and failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions contrary to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were all well-founded and succeeded.
Remedy was not determined in this judgment. The notes state that compensation for unfair dismissal, damages for wrongful dismissal, statutory redundancy payment, holiday pay, and the section 1 ERA 1996 claim would be decided at a separate Remedy Hearing, with notice to be sent separately. The respondent would only be entitled to take part in that hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge hearing the case.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only; compensation to be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay claim succeeded; damages to be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment succeeded; amount to be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim succeeded; amount to be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions contrary to section 1 ERA 1996 succeeded; compensation to be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.