Case 1800735/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Paul v URM (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1800735/2021
- Decision date
- 12 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Paul
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Paul, brought complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of holiday pay, and breach of contract. The case was heard by Employment Judge Bright at Leeds by CVP on 11 and 12 October 2021. The respondent was URM (UK) Limited.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint as not well founded. It also dismissed the complaint of a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 concerning holiday pay as not well founded.
The respondent accepted that it had breached the claimant’s contract of employment in respect of notice. On that basis, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £573 gross as damages for breach of contract.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent accepted that it breached the claimant’s contract of employment in respect of notice, and the tribunal ordered payment of £573 gross as damages. | Upheld | — | £573 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £573
- across all upheld claims
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.