Case 1803219/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Bark & Birch Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803219/2022
- Decision date
- 7 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Lunn brought claims against Bark & Birch Ltd for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract, and unpaid holiday entitlement. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. The redundancy payment claim failed because the tribunal found he had insufficient service to qualify for such a payment.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered the Respondent to pay £7,325. It also upheld the breach of contract claim in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,748.72. A further claim for holiday entitlement accrued at the date of termination succeeded, with an award of £2,288. The hearing listed for 16 November 2022 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the Claimant had insufficient service to qualify for a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of £7,325. | Upheld | — | £7,325 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £2,748.72. | Upheld | — | £2,749 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the Respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement accrued at the date of termination and ordered payment of £2,288. | Upheld | — | £2,288 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,362
- 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.