Case 1803059/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Deakin v DRS Mining Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803059/2019
- Decision date
- 1 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Deakin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued by Employment Judge Maidment. The tribunal recorded that Mr J Deakin had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered DRS Mining Ltd to pay damages of £1,368.50.
The judgment also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,160. In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £960.
The listed hearing on 14 August 2019 was cancelled. The judgment did not set out any further reasoning or any separate ET award components beyond the three sums ordered, so the total recorded award is £4,488.50.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages ordered. | Upheld | — | £1,369 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,160 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; gross sum ordered. | Upheld | — | £960 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,489
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.